ライフサイエンスコーパス: pressure ulcer

1 and receiving any risk assessment before the pressure ulcer.

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

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

4 age of patients with a nursing unit-acquired pressure ulcer.

5 Development of a stage 2 or greater pressure ulcer.

6 st-effective in preventing hospital acquired pressure ulcer.

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

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

9 e comparative effectiveness of treatments of pressure ulcers.

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

11 domains and contained items not specific to pressure ulcers.

12 in 2020) per patient with hospital-acquired pressure ulcers.

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

14 relation to the prevention and management of pressure ulcers.

15 or healthcare cost due to hospital-acquired pressure ulcers.

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

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

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

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

20 , inadequate mobilization raises the risk of pressure ulcers.

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

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

23 actors and effective prevention of pediatric pressure ulcers.

24 ndex, and percentage of patients at risk for pressure ulcers.

25 ibly accelerate closure of venous ulcers and pressure ulcers.

26 analysis, and 513 (3.4%) patients were with pressure ulcers.

27 ital stay were significantly associated with pressure ulcers.

28 0.91 to -0.26) but not with the frequency of pressure ulcers.

29 omplications, including mononeuropathies and pressure ulcers.

30 r injury falls and lower reporting rates for pressure ulcers.

31 98,730.24 per patient with hospital-acquired pressure ulcers.

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

33 associated with a decrease in unit-acquired pressure ulcers.

34 meters associated to recurrences of infected pressure ulcers.

35 functional status, parenteral nutrition, and pressure ulcers.

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

37 r prevention and treatment interventions for pressure ulcers.

38 directed towards prevention or treatment of pressure ulcers.

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

40 y settings, and all but one study focused on pressure ulcers.

41 e target patient population is patients with pressure ulcers.

42 Braden scale could enhance the prediction of pressure ulcers.

43 ventions for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers.

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

45 ment scales and preventive interventions for pressure ulcers.

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

47 rtality in patients with diabetes and severe pressure ulcers.

48 s do offloading devices work to prevent heel pressure ulcers?

49 iated with nursing care, including falls and pressure ulcers) (15.0%), and health care-associated inf

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

51 entage of high-risk long-stay residents with pressure ulcers (2 different measures for pressure ulcer

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

53 hours are associated with increased rates of pressure ulcers, a measure that is one of the most sensi

54 ead underreporting of major injury falls and pressure ulcers across US nursing homes, and underreport

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

56 Pressure ulcers affect as many as 3 million Americans an

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

58 To identify the factors associated with pressure ulcers among patients aged >= 75 years in an ac

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

60 The Pressure Ulcer and Fall Rate Quality Composite Index is

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

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

63 The Pressure Ulcer and Fall Rate Quality Composite Index was

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

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

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

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

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

69 ity, incontinence, feeding), adverse events (pressure ulcers and falls from bed), and cancer were rel

70 nd general adverse events (hospital-acquired pressure ulcers and falls).

71 s for selected quality indicators, including pressure ulcers and in-hospital mortality for acute myoc

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

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

74 37 studies (68.5%) had inadequate numbers of pressure ulcers and other methodological limitations.

75 once during their ICU stay, and ICU-acquired pressure ulcers and physical restraint use decreased (pe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

83 at and minimise deterioration of early-stage pressure ulcers, and patient factors that influence how

84 tegy also reduced the incidence of falls and pressure ulcers, and showed trends toward shortening the

85 Pressure ulcers are a complex healthcare issue.

86 Pressure ulcers are a major health concern.

87 Pressure ulcers are a major health problem, affect patie

88 Pressure ulcers are a major problem for national healthc

89 Pediatric pressure ulcers are a serious and largely preventable co

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

91 Pressure ulcers are associated with a nearly three-fold

92 Pressure ulcers are associated with substantial health b

93 Pressure ulcers are considered to be an adverse outcome

94 Pressure ulcers are costly and life-threatening complica

95 Treatments for pressure ulcers are directed towards promoting wound hea

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

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

98 Medical device-related pressure ulcers are mostly facility acquired, but their

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

100 Pressure ulcers are serious, avoidable, costly and commo

101 Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers are used as proxy measurements for the q

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

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

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

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

106 ncy nurse hours exceeded safe thresholds for pressure ulcers by 140.0% for agency staffing and by 63.

107 Heel pressure ulcers can cause pain, reduce mobility, lead to

108 ns and involvement in decision-making around pressure ulcer care are important aspects from the patie

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

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

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

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

113 ly living, mental status, nutrition, risk of pressure ulcers, comorbidity, medication, and marital/co

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

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

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

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

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

119 ous ulcer and decreased amputation or death; pressure ulcer, decreased minor amputation, and increase

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

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

122 inant amphiregulin administration suppressed pressure ulcer development after cutaneous I/R injury in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

130 11 factors predicted pressure ulcer development.

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

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

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

134 h clinically-defined chronic wounds (such as pressure ulcers, diabetic ulcers, and trauma wounds) who

135 ways, initial theories about the use of heel pressure ulcers fitted with interviewee's experiences.

136 e predisposition of afflicted individuals to pressure ulcer formation and wound healing disorders.

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

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

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

140 njury is a key player in the pathogeneses of pressure ulcer formation.

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

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

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

144 Reporting medical device-related pressure ulcers has been adopted in healthcare instituti

145 Pressure ulcers have an adverse impact on patients and c

146 e available, it seems that hospital-acquired pressure ulcers have significant economic implications f

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

148 60.0% were reported, and 39 894 stage 3 or 4 pressure ulcer hospitalizations, of which 67.7% were rep

149 ates less than 80% for major injury fall and pressure ulcer hospitalizations, respectively.

150 ethnicity) experienced major injury fall or pressure ulcer hospitalizations.

151 e, and agency nursing hours per patient day: pressure ulcers, iatrogenic pneumothorax, in-hospital fa

152 Pressure ulcers impose a substantial financial burden.

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

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

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

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

157 clinical practice for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers in hospitals.

158 he cumulative incidence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers in neonates was 9.8% (95% CI: 2.9%-19.8%

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

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

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

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

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

164 potential of repurposing auranofin to treat pressure ulcers infected with MRSA.

165 In the etiology of device related pressure ulcers, inflammation plays an important role.

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

167 Preventing pressure ulcers is challenging because the combination o

168 teomyelitis in patients with stage IV sacral pressure ulcers is controversial.

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

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

171 Pressure ulcers may develop within the first week of hos

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

173 related pathologies including "conventional pressure ulcers", "medical device related pressure injur

174 This helps prevent problems such as pressure ulcers, muscle contractures, and respiratory pr

175 eta-analysis indicate that hospital-acquired pressure ulcers occur frequently in pediatric population

176 stered Tweetable abstract: Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers occur frequently in pediatric population

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

186 Cost of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment differed conside

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

197 A pressure ulcer prevention care bundle consisting of mult

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

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

200 Although the pressure ulcer prevention care bundle was associated wit

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

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

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

204 Offloading boots are marketed as heel pressure ulcer prevention devices, working by removing p

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

206 sociated with adherence and concordance with pressure ulcer prevention guidelines in the community fo

207 caregivers and healthcare professionals with pressure ulcer prevention guidelines in the community.

208 However, adherence with pressure ulcer prevention guidelines remains low, with l

209 patients' ability and willingness to follow pressure ulcer prevention interventions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

216 Hospitals aiming to improve pressure ulcer prevention should focus on organizational

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

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

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

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

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

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

223 g ulcer (VLU), diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and pressure ulcer (PRU).

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

225 nd conditions including dementia, hair loss, pressure ulcers, pulmonary fibrosis, dyspnea, pulmonary

226 Pressure ulcers (PUs) are (1) prevalent secondary compli

227 Bacterial infection of pressure ulcers (PUs) are a notable source of hospitaliz

228 Pressure ulcers (PUs) are serious skin injuries whereby

229 Pressure ulcers (PUs) frequently occur in individuals wi

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

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

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

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

234 Pressure ulcer rates are persistently high despite years

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

236 Pressure ulcer rates decreased overall from 2003 through

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

238 Pressure ulcer rates increased by 0.09 per 1000 admissio

239 fects of care interventions on unit-acquired pressure ulcer rates over 4 years controlling for commun

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

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

242 l regression in which within-unit changes in pressure ulcer rates were related to the within-unit cha

243 ing, care interventions, nurse outcomes, and pressure ulcer rates, using unit-level data from the Nat

244 ospital and nursing unit characteristics and pressure ulcer rates.

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

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

247 used by nurses 'proactively' to prevent heel pressure ulcers, 'reactively' to treat and minimise dete

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

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

250 thnicity, were used: fall reporting rate and pressure ulcer reporting rate.

251 % vs 73.3%), and facilities with high vs low pressure ulcer reporting rates had significantly fewer W

252 Chronic wounds including pressure ulcers represent a significant burden to patien

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

254 r validated prognostic models for predicting pressure ulcer risk and studies evaluating the clinical

255 Emphasising pressure ulcer risk assessment and pressure ulcer gradin

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

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

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

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

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

261 rically-derived prognostic models to predict pressure ulcer risk.

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

263 ypotheses testing) and responsiveness of the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing version 3.0 were suppor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

271 .33 [95% CI, 1.26-1.40]) had higher rates of pressure ulcers than nursing homes serving primarily whi

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

273 is, approaches to osteomyelitis underlying a pressure ulcer, timing for the administration of empiric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

283 (POMC-MC1R) axis as a common feature across pressure ulcers, venous ulcers, and diabetic ulcers.

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

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

286 The factors associated with pressure ulcers were Body Mass Index (adjusted OR = 0.96

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

288 admission claims for major injury falls and pressure ulcers were linked with facility-reported Minim

289 th pressure ulcers (2 different measures for pressure ulcers were used); and percentage of long-stay

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

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

292 between reporting of major injury falls and pressure ulcers within a nursing home was estimated, and

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