ライフサイエンスコーパス: pressure ulcer

1 the likelihood of a postoperative new-onset pressure ulcer.

2 ty nursing caseload who were known to have a pressure ulcer.

3 Development of a stage 2 or greater pressure ulcer.

4 st-effective in preventing hospital acquired pressure ulcer.

5 domains and contained items not specific to pressure ulcers.

6 ver all quality of life domains important in pressure ulcers.

7 ed with the outcome of treatment of infected pressure ulcers.

8 relation to the prevention and management of pressure ulcers.

9 rograms that aim to reduce facility-acquired pressure ulcers.

10 odalities for treatment and/or prevention of pressure ulcers.

11 ogenesis and effective treatment of post-SCI pressure ulcers.

12 ]; moderate consistency) improved healing of pressure ulcers.

13 , inadequate mobilization raises the risk of pressure ulcers.

14 e score of 18 or less and/or the presence of pressure ulcers.

15 actor, and light therapy improved healing of pressure ulcers.

16 actors and effective prevention of pediatric pressure ulcers.

17 ibly accelerate closure of venous ulcers and pressure ulcers.

18 meters associated to recurrences of infected pressure ulcers.

19 functional status, parenteral nutrition, and pressure ulcers.

20 falls and fractures, failure to thrive, and pressure ulcers.

21 r prevention and treatment interventions for pressure ulcers.

22 directed towards prevention or treatment of pressure ulcers.

23 asive 'smart bandage' for early detection of pressure ulcers.

24 e target patient population is patients with pressure ulcers.

25 Braden scale could enhance the prediction of pressure ulcers.

26 ventions for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers.

27 t patient population is patients at risk for pressure ulcers.

28 ment scales and preventive interventions for pressure ulcers.

29 ntify patients who are at risk of developing pressure ulcers.

30 rtality in patients with diabetes and severe pressure ulcers.

31 s who are at an increased risk of developing pressure ulcers.

32 s who are at an increased risk of developing pressure ulcers.

33 e comparative effectiveness of treatments of pressure ulcers.

34 final day of length of stay and treatment of pressure ulcers.

35 cers (19.0%), venous leg ulcers (26.1%), and pressure ulcers (16.2%).

36 tients were assessed as having a Grade >/= 1 pressure ulcer, a prevalence rate of 0.40 per 1000 adult

37 ng the methodology specified by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, together with the establi

38 Pressure ulcers affect as many as 3 million Americans an

39 From 2003 through 2008, the prevalence of pressure ulcers among high-risk nursing home residents w

40 ed on hypothesized relationships between the Pressure Ulcer and Fall Rate Quality Composite Index and

41 The Pressure Ulcer and Fall Rate Quality Composite Index is

42 ff were significantly associated with higher Pressure Ulcer and Fall Rate Quality Composite Index sco

43 estraint use were not associated with higher Pressure Ulcer and Fall Rate Quality Composite Index sco

44 The Pressure Ulcer and Fall Rate Quality Composite Index was

45 dy is needed to examine the usability of the Pressure Ulcer and Fall Rate Quality Composite Index.

46 e nursing care quality performance index-the Pressure Ulcer and Fall Rate Quality Composite Index.

47 The Pressure Ulcer and Fall Rate Quality Composite Index=100

48 nit patients at risk for a hospital-acquired pressure ulcer and higher unit rates of physical restrai

49 ntained index terms and key words related to pressure ulcers and cost.

50 Adjusted associations between development of pressure ulcers and intraoperative characteristics were

51 lated events included abrasions, contusions, pressure ulcers and lacerations.

52 37 studies (68.5%) had inadequate numbers of pressure ulcers and other methodological limitations.

53 inases and their inhibitors in the fluids of pressure ulcers and that this is primarily the result of

54 alculate the cost of preventing and treating pressure ulcers and their impact on patients, healthcare

55 ing multicomponent strategies for preventing pressure ulcers and to examine the importance of context

56 sment, pressure ulcer prevention, grading of pressure ulcers and treatment decisions.

57 are unit patients are at particular risk for pressure ulcers and ventilator-associated pneumonia.

58 ng home residents who were initially free of pressure ulcers and were institutionalized between Octob

59 sed bloodstream infection, hospital-acquired pressure ulcer, and anxiety rates (all p<0.03); and had

60 Pressure ulcers are a major health problem, affect patie

61 Pediatric pressure ulcers are a serious and largely preventable co

62 Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers are a serious patient safety concern, as

63 Pressure ulcers are associated with a nearly three-fold

64 Pressure ulcers are associated with substantial health b

65 Pressure ulcers are considered to be an adverse outcome

66 Pressure ulcers are costly and life-threatening complica

67 Treatments for pressure ulcers are directed towards promoting wound hea

68 Interventions to prevent pressure ulcers are focused on identifying at risk patie

69 Currently, outcomes important in pressure ulcers are inadequately covered by generic and

70 Many treatments for pressure ulcers are promoted, but their relative efficac

71 Pressure ulcers are serious, avoidable, costly and commo

72 onal $3296 (95%CI: dominant to $144,525) per pressure ulcer avoided.

73 le if they were: >/=18 years old; at risk of pressure ulcer because of limited mobility; expected to

74 Patients at risk of developing pressure ulcers (Braden<17) had higher odds of having ri

75 Higher RN hours were associated with fewer pressure ulcers, but RN hours were not related to the ot

76 prevention per additional hospital acquired pressure ulcer case avoided, estimated using a two-stage

77 The primary outcome was hospital-acquired pressure ulcer categorized as stages II, III, and IV; de

78 Complications from hospital-acquired pressure ulcers cause 60,000 deaths and significant morb

79 In patients with infected pressure ulcers, clinical recurrence occurs in almost tw

80 ld and 25-fold, respectively, in fluids from pressure ulcers compared with fluids from healing wounds

81 surfaces were associated with lower risk for pressure ulcers compared with standard mattresses (relat

82 agenolytic activity revealed that fluid from pressure ulcers contained significantly greater levels o

83 osorbent assay demonstrated that fluids from pressure ulcers contained significantly more collagenase

84 of importance, ranked highest in predicting pressure ulcers: days in the hospital, serum albumin, ag

85 ties on admission), the hazard ratio for new pressure ulcers developed (pressure ulcer prevention car

86 Postoperative pressure ulcers developed in 10.7% of critically ill pat

87 Model-predicted rates of pressure ulcer development at individual long-term care

88 most frequently as independent predictors of pressure ulcer development included three primary domain

89 essor use, was associated with postoperative pressure ulcer development on adjusted analysis.

90 and residents identified as not at risk for pressure ulcer development was euro1.44 (4.26) per day i

91 Facility-level rates of pressure ulcer development, both unadjusted and adjusted

92 of factors which increase the probability of pressure ulcer development.

93 ght was a significant and distinct factor in pressure ulcer development.

94 11 factors predicted pressure ulcer development.

95 e database, was used to derive predictors of pressure ulcer development; the resulting model was vali

96 predictive of pressure injury (also known as pressure ulcer) development among critical-care patients

97 fusion to the tissue causes cell death and a pressure ulcer develops.

98 pothesized that a computer simulation of the pressure ulcer formation process, informed by data regar

99 l other important characteristic patterns of pressure ulcer formation, was demonstrated in this model

100 ad of bed actually increase the incidence of pressure ulcer formation.

101 te 1, 185 patients were assessed as having a pressure ulcer Grade >/= 1, a prevalence rate of 0.77 pe

102 phasising pressure ulcer risk assessment and pressure ulcer grading in clinical practice is unlikely

103 pare hospitals by rates of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) for public reporting and financi

104 Pressure ulcers have an adverse impact on patients and c

105 , with the endpoint being diagnosis of a new pressure ulcer, hospital discharge/transfer or 28days; w

106 Pressure ulcers impose a substantial financial burden.

107 to determine the prevalence of patients with pressure ulcers in a community setting in the United Kin

108 mented multicomponent initiatives to prevent pressure ulcers in adults in U.S. acute and long-term ca

109 rate-strength evidence shows that healing of pressure ulcers in adults is improved with the use of ai

110 W: In contrast to adult literature, data for pressure ulcers in children is limited.

111 thin sites of care and risk-adjusted odds of pressure ulcers in stages 2 through 4 for black and whit

112 RECENT FINDINGS: Awareness and prevention of pressure ulcers in the pediatric acute care setting are

113 Models (ABM) are useful in settings such as pressure ulcers, in which spatial realism is important.

114 utcomes evaluated for this guideline include pressure ulcer incidence and severity, resource use, dia

115 three of 186 patients developed at least one pressure ulcer (incidence = 12.4%) after an average stay

116 The formation of a pressure ulcer is also perceived to be an indicator of p

117 Preventing pressure ulcers is challenging because the combination o

118 The risk for pressure ulcers is rarely identified in the perioperativ

119 nd fewer stage 2 or worse immobility-related pressure ulcers (<1% vs 2%; P = .001).

120 Pressure ulcers may develop within the first week of hos

121 ix-degrading enzymes at the wound surface of pressure ulcers may impede the healing of these wounds a

122 the populations most prone to development of pressure ulcers of the skin.

123 In fiscal year 2012, hospital-acquired pressure ulcers on pilot units decreased by 43% (from 61

124 injured adults hospitalized for an infected pressure ulcer or implant-free osteomyelitis and reviewe

125 locality, whether they were known to have a pressure ulcer or not.

126 lustering and pre-specified covariates (age, pressure ulcer present at baseline, body mass index, rea

127 re aged 18 years or older at the time of the pressure ulcer prevalence audit were included.

128 However, published data on pressure ulcer prevalence in a community setting is curr

129 collection included data on risk assessment, pressure ulcer prevalence, preventive measures, unit cos

130 A key factor in pressure ulcer prevention and management is individual n

131 Cost of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment differed conside

132 To examine the cost of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment in an adult popu

133 paper is to provide insight into the cost of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment in an adult popu

134 The cost of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment in hospitals and

135 cal differences between studies, the cost of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment in hospitals and

136 The economic impact of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment is high.

137 time measurements for activities related to pressure ulcer prevention and treatment, and nursing wag

138 Pain control, delirium, and pressure ulcer prevention are important inpatient care e

139 Recommendations specific to pressure ulcer prevention are needed as part of methodol

140 patients receiving either a patient-centred pressure ulcer prevention care bundle (n=799) or standar

141 the cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred pressure ulcer prevention care bundle compared to standa

142 A pressure ulcer prevention care bundle consisting of mult

143 tes and randomised within strata to either a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle or standard care.

144 ard ratio for new pressure ulcers developed (pressure ulcer prevention care bundle relative to standa

145 Although the pressure ulcer prevention care bundle was associated wit

146 his non-significant finding include that the pressure ulcer prevention care bundle was effective but

147 trained in partnering with patients in their pressure ulcer prevention care.

148 hree messages for patients' participation in pressure ulcer prevention care: keep moving; look after

149 The mean (SD) cost of pressure ulcer prevention for patients and residents ide

150 Therefore, pressure ulcer prevention is a priority for nurses, heal

151 Implementation of evidence-based care for pressure ulcer prevention is lacking.

152 Data on the cost of current practice of pressure ulcer prevention or treatment in Flanders, a re

153 e if they reported on direct medical cost of pressure ulcer prevention or treatment, and provided nat

154 Cost of pressure ulcer prevention per patient per day varied bet

155 t-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of pressure ulcer prevention performed from the health syst

156 Although the cost to provide pressure ulcer prevention to patients at risk can import

157 The mean (SD) cost for pressure ulcer prevention was euro7.88 (8.21) per hospit

158 different levels that support evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention, and registered nurses need to

159 focusing on pressure ulcer risk assessment, pressure ulcer prevention, grading of pressure ulcers an

160 t to recognize at-risk children, can lead to pressure ulcer prevention.

161 core) and hospital type were associated with pressure ulcer prevention.

162 spinal cord injury (SCI) are predisposed to pressure ulcers (PU).

163 Pressure ulcers (PUs) are serious skin injuries whereby

164 nutritional supplements for the treatment of pressure ulcers (PUs) have been small, inconsistent in t

165 ity Composite Index=100-PUR-FR, where PUR is pressure ulcer rate and FR is total fall rate.

166 In 2003, the pressure ulcer rate was 16.8% (95% confidence interval [

167 ers) were stratified in two groups by recent pressure ulcer rates and randomised within strata to eit

168 nd long-term care settings and that reported pressure ulcer rates at least 6 months after implementat

169 Pressure ulcer rates decreased overall from 2003 through

170 PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of pressure ulcer rates in 2.1 million white and 346,808 bl

171 of nursing homes showed persistently higher pressure ulcer rates than white residents.

172 Whereas pressure ulcer rates were higher in facilities led by DO

173 nents improved processes of care and reduced pressure ulcer rates.

174 tives in healthcare have led to a focus upon pressure ulcer rates.

175 Further research into nurses' pressure ulcer related judgements and decision making is

176 ded empirical data on key aspects of nurses' pressure ulcer related judgements and decision making.

177 es for use in evaluating patient outcomes in pressure ulcer research.

178 Emphasising pressure ulcer risk assessment and pressure ulcer gradin

179 ion, early ambulation, fall risk assessment, pressure ulcer risk assessment, Functional Independence

180 iew were included in the review, focusing on pressure ulcer risk assessment, pressure ulcer preventio

181 systems to use their own data over time for pressure ulcer risk prediction, to develop risk models b

182 nt tools were not routinely used to identify pressure ulcer risk, and that nurses rely on their own k

183 there is no single factor which can explain pressure ulcer risk, rather a complex interplay of facto

184 ealing compared with placebo (improvement in Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing mean [SD] score of 3.55

185 conomic studies, and the need for additional pressure ulcer specific recommendations.

186 was assessed against an empirically derived pressure ulcer-specific conceptual framework.

187 ed the simplification and standardization of pressure ulcer-specific interventions and documentation,

188 hronic wound measures were identified but no pressure ulcer-specific measures.

189 ns to extract wound information (wound type, pressure ulcer stage, wound size, anatomic location, and

190 A pressure ulcer, stage III or higher, is included in that

191 ity, perfusion (including diabetes) and skin/pressure ulcer status.

192 .33 [95% CI, 1.26-1.40]) had higher rates of pressure ulcers than nursing homes serving primarily whi

193 e injuries and the fall in the prevalence of pressure ulcers, the adoption of the lift team program d

194 ation as adjunctive therapy in patients with pressure ulcers to accelerate wound healing.

195 ry of high quality care to prevent and mange pressure ulcers to all patients in clinical practice.

196 rocolloid or foam dressings in patients with pressure ulcers to reduce wound size.

197 amino acid supplementation in patients with pressure ulcers to reduce wound size.

198 Cost of pressure ulcer treatment per patient per day ranged from

199 n, and nine articles reported on the cost of pressure ulcer treatment.

200 A masked, randomized pressure ulcer trial was performed comparing sequential

201 versal of impaired healing in animal models, pressure ulcer trials have been performed with several e

202 chotic drug use) and three outcome measures (pressure ulcers, urinary tract infections, and weight lo

203 om acute surgical wounds and from nonhealing pressure ulcers was examined for the presence of several

204 rvices' budgets, the costs to treat a severe pressure ulcer were found to be substantially higher.

205 ing patients with and without the outcome of pressure ulcers were conducted for each preoperative cha

206 mary outcome, incidence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers, which applied to both the cluster and i

207 ical mechanisms mediating the development of pressure ulcers will allow for better delineation of pop

208 for understanding, preventing, and treating pressure ulcers: wound cleansers, repositioning, negativ