The TURN Study: Is there a difference in pressure ulcer incidence with 2, 3, or 4 hour turning of nursing facility residents? Nancy Bergstrom, Susan D.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Risk Assessment & Management Plans Sue Templeton Michael Arthur.
Advertisements

WOC Nursing and Pressure Ulcer Prevention History and Current Status Heath Brown RN, WOCN Wellstar Kennestone.
Mobility Outcomes At 2 Small Hospitals in the Mid North Coast of NSW Stephen Downs Jodie Marquez Pauline Chiarelli.
Cardiovascular outcome in patients with dysglycemia with daily supplementation of n-3 fatty acids 1 ORIGIN trial (Outcome Reduction with an Initial Glargine.
Appraisal of Alcohol Withdrawal in Native Americans with the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Revised Scale. Paul Saladino MS, William.
Baseline Assessments Hospital: Pressure ulcer Incidence 8-13% Pilot Ward (Anglesey): Baseline incidence rate - 4.5% Nutritional assessment - 50% Pressure.
Hospital Acquired Pressure Ulcers. Background – Harm Incidence of Stage II or greater > Hospital- Acquired Pressure Ulcers ranges from 5% - 9% 60, 000.
Jeff Reece, RN, MSN, MBA Chief Executive Office Chesterfield General Hospital.
Confidential for Quality Improvement Purposes Only Hospital Acquired Pressure Ulcer Reduction Project Jodi Blaszczyk RN, BSN, CWOCN, Skin Care Liaison.
Evaluation of a pilot Pressure Ulcer Prevention Initiative (PUPI) for patients with traumatic spinal cord injury admitted to an acute care setting John.
Standard 8: Preventing and Managing Pressure Injuries Advice Centre Network Meeting Content Experts: Keryln Carville & Margo Asimus Acknowledgement: Previous.
Elizabeth Ciyou-Allee BA, RN, CLNC, CHPN. ELNEC-PEDS, TNCC
Pressure Ulcers in Older Adults. 2 Objectives Identify how to calculate the incidence and prevalence of pressure ulcers Perform a risk assessment for.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence March–April 2009.
Examples of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Tools
1 Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence September–October 2010.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence January–February 2011.
“Saving The Skin: pressure ulcer prevention in the ICU”
BS704 Class 7 Hypothesis Testing Procedures
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence January–February 2010.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence November–December 2009.
Pressure Ulcer Prevention at North Memorial. So what’s the big deal ?
PRESSURE ULCERS THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG PROCARE HOSPICE OF NEVADA RM VANDEE RN MSN
M Purpose Improvement Tools/Methods Limitations / Lessons Learned Results Process Improvement Improving Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers at Discharge.
[Facility Name] [Presenter Name] [Date]. Objectives 2 After this session, you will be able to 1. describe Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and Plan-Do-Study-Act.
Joyce Black, PhD, RN 1.  Expresses ideas and facts clearly ◦ Legible ◦ Spelled correctly  Provides a record for later reference  Provides evidence.
Study design P.Olliaro Nov04. Study designs: observational vs. experimental studies What happened?  Case-control study What’s happening?  Cross-sectional.
Systematic Review Module 7: Rating the Quality of Individual Studies Meera Viswanathan, PhD RTI-UNC EPC.
Plymouth Health Community NICE Guidance Implementation Group Workshop Two: Debriding agents and specialist wound care clinics. Pressure ulcer risk assessment.
The TURN Study for Pressure Ulcer Prevention: A Symposium Presented at the State of the Science Congress September,15, 2012.
S.O.S. Save Our Skin Confidential: For Quality Improvement Purposes Only.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence September–October 2012.
Thibodaux Using Six Sigma to Reduce Pressure Ulcers Thibodaux Regional Medical Center Darcy Prejeant & Sheri Eschete August 20, 2007.
EFFICACY OF A STAGE-BASED BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION TO PROMOTE STI SCREENING IN YOUNG WOMEN: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL Chacko MR, Wiemann CM, Kozinetz.
Lecture 9: Analysis of intervention studies Randomized trial - categorical outcome Measures of risk: –incidence rate of an adverse event (death, etc) It.
System error Biases in epidemiological studies FETP India.
A Longitudinal Study of an Intervention to Enhance Organizational Emphasis on Safety Academy Health June 9, 2008 Sara J. Singer Coauthors: Anita Tucker,
Pressure Ulcers & Nutritional Deficits in Elderly Long-Term Care Patients: Effects of a Comprehensive Nutritional Protocol on Pressure Ulcer Healing, Length.
REDUCING IN-HOUSE ACQUIRED PRESSURE ULCERS The Long-Term Care Approach By: Yolanda Wingster.
Pressure Ulcers Avoidability
Reduction of Nosocomial Pressure Ulcers on 5 NEW Rehabilitation Unit S ave O ur S kin Confidential: Quality Improvement Material.
Copyright restrictions may apply JAMA Pediatrics Journal Club Slides: Intermittent vs Continuous Pulse Oximetry McCulloh R, Koster M, Ralston S, et al.
Virtual ACE Update.
School of Nursing Health Literacy Among Informal Caregivers of Persons With Memory Loss Judith A. Erlen, PhD, RN, FAAN; Jennifer H. Lingler, PhD, RN; Lisa.
Facility identification, characteristics, and orientation to enable the conduct of a randomized trial in nursing facilities Anita Stern, Mary Pat Rapp,
Construct Validity of the Moisture Subscale of the Braden Scale©: A Secondary Analysis Mary Pat Rapp, Tolulope Omolayo, Kilty Brown, Jing Li, Ryan Barrett,
1 Information Systems Use Among Ohio Registered Nurses: Testing Validity and Reliability of Nursing Informatics Measurements Amany A. Abdrbo, RN, MSN,
The Elderly and Pressure Ulcer Prevention: PRSS vs. Manual Repositioning Bridget McMahon.
Unit 7 Research Designs. What is a Research Design?? Researcher’s strategy: Describes how the researcher(s) will answer their questions/test hypotheses.
Implementing foam-silicone dressings in the ICU To Reduce pressure ulcer formation By: Kathryn Fox, RN Ferris State University Preventing pressure ulcer.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence September–October 2013.
The TURN Study: Ensuring Treatment and Outcome Fidelity Nancy Bergstrom, Mary Pat Rapp, Susan D. Horn, Anita Stern, Michael D. Watkiss, & Ryan Barrett.
Effectiveness of Patient Navigation on Diagnostic Interval, Anxiety, and Satisfaction of Minority Women with Abnormal Mammograms: a Randomized Controlled.
Hospital Acquired Pressure Ulcers Driver Diagram
Involving Patients with Low Risk Chest Pain in Discharge Decisions: A Multicenter Trial Erik P. Hess MD MSc.
Use of White Noise Machine in Long-Term Care Patients Jamie Wilson COHP 450.
Testing the Feasibility and Impact of the Res-Care-CI Elizabeth Galik, MSN, CRNP University of Maryland School of Nursing AMDA 30th Annual Symposium March.
Pressure Ulcer Prevention: Best Practices Student Name(s) (listed alphabetically) Pressure Ulcer Prevention: Best Practices Student Name(s) (listed alphabetically)
Zepeda², K. Hickey¹, A. Blomquist³, K. Hall¹
Operating Room Nurse to Post Anesthesia Care Unit Nurse Handoff: Implementation of a Written SBAR Intervention Erin Long BSN, RN, DNP Student The unique.
Pressure ulcer prevention
Nursing Mobility Protocol:
Considering the evidence for pressure injuries
Pressure Ulcer Prevention: Best Practices
Prepared by nsreen alkhatib MSN
Assessed for eligibility (N = )
Evidence Based Practice 3
The Tools to make it Happen
Braden Scale Mobility Subsection
Charting Q2 Turns/Activity
Presentation transcript:

The TURN Study: Is there a difference in pressure ulcer incidence with 2, 3, or 4 hour turning of nursing facility residents? Nancy Bergstrom, Susan D. Horn, Mary Pat Rapp, Anita Stern, Ryan Barrett, Michael D. Watkiss

Purpose of Study Is there a significant difference in the incidence of pressure ulcers among moderate and high risk nursing facility residents cared for on a high density foam mattress when repositioning occurs every 2, compared to every 3 or 4 hours?

Hypothesis It is hypothesized that there is no difference in pressure ulcer incidence among moderate or high risk residents randomly assigned to repositioning every 2-, compared with every 3- or 4 hours.

Randomized Controlled Trial Random allocation – High risk ( 2, compared with 3 or 4 hour turn) – Moderate risk (2, compared with 3 or 4 hour turn) 3 week follow up Weekly and final skin assessment (blinded) Outcome PrU on coccyx, sacrum, heels Stage 1 must be present on 2 days

The Intervention Random assignment to turning schedule Turning clock kept in bedside folder Documentation (24- hr safety checklist: skin observation, position in bed, position of heels in bed, time spent in chair, bathing, meal intake, continence care) Fidelity measures (% on time turning, % position agreement between CNA and Supervisor) Shift handoff

Outcome Assessors Trained in risk assessment using the Braden Scale Trained using video, vignettes, observation Prior to study to determine selection and risk Weekly throughout study Trained in skin assessment Blinded to turning frequency Assessed for PUs weekly

Facility Criteria Provide basic good care Use high density foam mattresses (mattress provided to all participants in Canada due to variability in existing surfaces) Willingness to provide staff time to participate Initial screening of residents verify number of eligible, at risk subjects

Resident Criteria Newly admitted (within 7 days), or Long term (> 90 days) Age > 65 years At risk for PrUs Moderate risk (Braden scores 13, 14) High risk (Braden scores 10-12) No PrUs at outset High density foam mattress

Sample Size Assuming a change from 4% incidence to 8% would be considered significant, a one-tailed test, and an alpha of.05, the power to detect such a difference is 0.82 for 900 participants.

Lost to follow-up: (n=26) Hospitalized: (n=8), Died: (n=1), Discharged: (n=2), Withdrew: (n=10), Other: (n=5) Analyzed (n=295) Did not receive allocated intervention: (n=4) Assessed for eligibility (n= 6240) Excluded (n=5273)  Not meeting inclusion criteria (n= 4840)  Declined to participate (n= 204)  Other reasons (n= 229) Analyzed (n=321) Did not receive allocated intervention: (n=14) Lost to follow-up: (n=35) Hospitalized: (n=8), Died: (n=6), Discharged: (n=2), Withdrew: (n=14), Other: (n=5) Lost to follow-up: (n=28) Hospitalized: (n=13), Died: (n=2), Discharged: (n=8), Withdrew: (n=5) Analyzed (n=326) Did not receive allocated intervention: (n=7) Analyzed Randomized (n=967) Allocation Follow-up Allocated to intervention (n=335)  Received allocated intervention (n=321) Did not receive allocated intervention: (n=14) Death:(n=2), Hospitalized(n=1),Other(n=3), Participant Choice:(n=8) Allocated to intervention (n=333)  Received allocated intervention (n=326) Did not receive allocated intervention: (n=7) Hospitalized:(n=1), Participant Choice: (n=6) Allocated to intervention (n=299)  Received allocated intervention (n=295) Did not receive allocated intervention: (n=4) Hospitalization: (n=2), Participant Choice: (n=1), Other: (n=1) 2 Hour Turn Group 3 Hour Turn Group 4 Hour Turn Group

Characteristics VariableAll (N=942)Mod Risk (N=617) High Risk (N=325) P= (T-test) Age (years) (M + SD) 85 (7.7) 0.36 Braden (M + SD) 12.8 (1.1)13.6 (0.5)11.4 (0.7)<.001 Canada US 505 (53.6) 437 (46.4) 336 (54.4) 281 (45.5) 169 (52.0) 156 (48.0) 0.49

Characteristics VariableAll (N=942)Mod Risk (N=617) High Risk (N=325) P= (T-test) Female # (%) 731 (77.6)464 (75.2)267 (82.2)0.017 Race # (%) White Black Asian Hispanic 758 (80.5) 55 ( 5.8) 101 (10.7) 22 ( 2.3) 506 (82.0) 37 ( 6.0) 59 ( 9.6) 14 ( 2.3) 252 (77.5) 18 ( 5.5) 42 (12.9) 8 ( 2.5) 0.056

Characteristics VariableAll (N=942)Mod Risk (N=617) High Risk (N=325) P= (T-test) Diagnosis # (%) Dementia Cerebro Diabetes Cardio Musculo Thyroid Nutrition 672 (72.5) 341 (36.8) 252 (27.2) 713 (76.9) 506 (54.6) 167 (18.0) 18 ( 1.9) 421 (69.0) 216 (35.4) 173 (28.4) 491 (80.5) 333 (54.6) 111 (18.2) 5 (0.82) 251 (79.2) 125 (39.4) 79 (24.9) 222 (70.0) 173 (54.6) 56 (17.7) 13 ( 4.1) LOS # (%) Long Short 814 (86.4) 128 (13.6) 527 (85.4) 90 (14.6) 287 (88.3) 38 (11.7)

Analysis 942 participants, power 80%, and 1-tailed type I error of p<0.05, to detect a difference of about 4% between turning schedules Moderate risk, 3 hour turn group was significantly different Chi square/Fisher’s exact test ANOVA Original prediction 4% incidence/group

Incidence of PrU by Risk and Turning Group GroupUlcers/ Group % Ulcers Ulcers 2-hour % Ulcers Ulcers 3-hour % Ulcers Ulcers 4-hour % ulcers Group (p=) All participants 19/942 (2.02%) 8/321 (2.49) 2/326 (0.61%) 9/295 (3.05%) (0.07) Moderate Risk 13/617 (2.11%) 6/210 (2.86%) 0/209 (0%) 7/198 (3.54%) (0.03) High Risk6/325 (1.85%) 2/111 (1.80%) 2/117 (1.71%) 2/97 (2.06%) (0.98) Moderate vs. High (0.73)

Discussion

EVIDENCE FOR TURNING

Study Braden Scale Score Support Surface 2-hour3-hour4-hour6-hour Defloor et. al Belgium Mean Standard Visco elastic mattress 9/63 (14%)14/58 (24%) 2/66 (3%) stage 2 10/63 (15.9%) Stage 2 Vanderwee et. al., 2007 Belgium Mean Visco elastic foam overlay (7 cm), turns 17/122 stage 2 (13.9%) stage 3 or 4 (2.5%) 22/113 Stage 2 (19.5%) Stage 3 or 4 (1.8%) Moore et al., 2011 Scotland Braden Activity and Mobility Subscales 99% had powered redistribution device 2/99 (2%)7/114 (6%) TURN Study US & Canada Braden Moderate Risk (13-14) High Risk (10-12) Visco elastic, high density foam mattresses Moderate: 6/210 (2.86%) High: 2/111 (1.8%) Moderate: 0/209 (0.00%) High: 2/117 (1.71%) Moderate: 7/198 (3.54%) High: 2/97 (2.06%)

Study Braden Scale Score Support Surface 2-hour3-hour4-hour Defloor et. al Mean Visco elastic mattress 2/66 (3%) stage 2 TURN StudyBraden Moderate Risk (13-14) High Risk (10-12) Visco elastic, high density foam mattresses Moderate: 6/210 (2.86%) High: 2/111 (1.8%) Moderate: 0/209 (0.00%) High: 2/117 (1.71%) Moderate: 7/198 (3.54%) High: 2/97 (2.06%)

Conclusions

Implementation Turn Q 3 or 4 hours, IF… 1. High density foam mattress 2. Braden risk scores 10 – Using guideline based care: (chair cushions, nutrition, briefs, careful vigilant staff)

Implementation 3. Use Checklist to ensure safety and consistency of care 4. Use Checklist to monitor care and change care plan if needed 5. Monitor outcomes on a pilot basis