The National Pressure Ulcer Long-Term Care Study: Outcomes of Pressure Ulcer Treatments in Long-Term Care
Article first published online: 4 AUG 2005
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Volume 53, Issue 10, pages 1721–1729, October 2005
How to Cite
Bergstrom, N., Horn, S. D., Smout, R. J., Bender, S. A., Ferguson, M. L., Taler, G., Sauer, A. C., Sharkey, S. S. and Voss, A. C. (2005), The National Pressure Ulcer Long-Term Care Study: Outcomes of Pressure Ulcer Treatments in Long-Term Care. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53: 1721–1729. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53506.x
- Issue published online: 21 SEP 2005
- Article first published online: 4 AUG 2005
- pressure ulcers;
- older adults;
- nursing homes;
- long-term care
Objectives: To identify resident, wound, and treatment characteristics associated with pressure ulcer (PrU) healing in long-term care residents.
Design: Retrospective cohort study with convenience sampling.
Setting: Ninety-five long-term care facilities participating in the National Pressure Ulcer Long-Term Care Study throughout the United States.
Participants: Eight hundred eighty-two residents, aged 18 and older, with length of stay of 14 days or longer, who had at least one Stage II to IV PrU.
Measurements: Data collected for each resident over a 12-week period included resident characteristics, treatment characteristics, and change in PrU area. Data were obtained from medical records, Minimum Data Set, and other records.
Results: Two multiple regression models, one for each stage grouping (Stage II, Stage III and IV), were completed. The area of Stage II PrU was reduced more with moist (F=21.91, P<.001) than with dry (F=13.41, P<.001) dressings. PrUs cleaned with saline or soap showed less decrease in area (F=12.34, P<.001) than PrUs cleaned with other cleansers such as antiseptic, antibiotic, or commercial cleansers. Change in area of Stage III and IV PrUs was related to sufficient enteral feeding (F=5.23, P=.02), enteral feeding without higher acuity levels (F=3.94, P=.048), size of PrU (very large (F=120.89, P=.001) and large (F=27.82, P=.001)), and type of dressing (moist (F=14.70, P<.001) and dry (F=5.88, P=.02)). Stage III and IV PrUs increased in area when debrided (F=5.97, P=.02). The overall models were significant (Stage III and IV, F=20.30, coefficient of determination (R2)=0.06, P<.001; Stage II, F=40.28, R2=0.13, P<.001) but explained little of the variation in change in PrU area.
Conclusion: In this sample of nursing facility residents, use of moist dressings (Stage II, Stage III and IV) and adequate nutritional support (Stage III and IV) are strong predictors of PrU healing.