Skip to main content
Download PDF

Protocols and their effects for medical device-related pressure injury prevention among critically ill patients: a systematic review

BMC Nursing volume 23, Article number: 403 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

A pressure injury refers to localized damage to the skin and/or tissue due to prolonged pressure, and it has recently been defined to include pressure injuries related to medical devices. Medical device-related pressure injuries occur in various sites and are difficult to detect. Even if it is detected, medical devices are essential to life for critically ill patients. Thus, it is difficult to remove or change the position of the medical device; therefore, prevention is essential. This study aims to integrate the literature on medical device-related pressure injury prevention protocols among critically ill patients.

Methods

The literature inclusion criteria were (1) critically ill patients, (2) device-related pressure injury interventions, (3) randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs, and (4) written in Korean or English. The literature search and selection were performed following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions with the support of the PRISMA Guidelines.

Results

Twelve articles were finally selected. The incidence of medical device-related pressure injury decreased from 8.1–96.7% before intervention to 0.3–53.3% after intervention, respectively. Medical device-related pressure injury prevention was effective in reducing medical device-related pressure injury incidence when applied to patients of all ages, from neonates to adults, in a variety of intensive care units. Medical device-related pressure injury prevention strategies include nurse education, assessment, documentation, and interventions (hygiene, repositioning, emergent therapy such as protective dressing or designed equipment reducing pressure) of pressure injury. Pressure injury dressings primarily included hydrocolloid foam dressings, but transparent hydrocolloid formulations also effectively reduced medical device-related pressure injury incidence rates.

Conclusions

In the future, it is necessary to increase the level of evidence by applying specialized medical device-related pressure injury prevention methods for different medical devices and areas of pressure injuries, and verifying their effectiveness.

Trial registration

The review protocol was registered (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022346450).

Peer Review reports

Background

A pressure injury (PI) comprises localized damage to the skin and/or underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence as a result of prolonged pressure or pressure in combination with shear [1, 2]; it has recently been defined to include PIs related to medical devices [2]. PI is associated with ineffective tissue perfusion or excessive deformation of the tissue [3]. Sustained external pressures above a threshold cause prolonged ischemia, and reperfusion injury, which occurs when the blood supply is restored after a period of ischemia. This is considered an additional cause of tissue damage that causes PI. Moreover, the shear and friction may be factors affecting local capillary beds, which could be contributing to tissue hypoxia [4]. Tissue damage can occur not only with short periods of high pressure, but also with prolonged periods of low pressure [3]. In particular, medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPIs) do not occur at bony protrusions like typical PIs, but at various sites such as skin and mucous membranes where medical devices are applied, making it difficult to detect and accurately assess the depth of PIs [2].

The incidence of PI is an indicator of the quality of care and hospitals are applying practices to prevent PI; however, its incidence in intensive care units (ICUs) ranges from 21 to 35%, higher than 3 to 14% observed in general wards [5]. PI often occurs in people with impaired mobility or sensation [4]. Especially, critically ill patients often have uncontrollable external and internal factors that make it difficult to avoid the development of PI despite the implementation of PI preventive care [6]. Previous studies have identified approximately 43 risk factors for PI in critically ill patients, which can be categorized into intrinsic factors such as patient characteristics, length of stay, comorbidities, and hypotension; medical devices such as prolonged mechanical ventilation; and vasopressor agents [7]. In a previous study that examined 2,203 cardiovascular ICU patients over a three-year period, the incidence of PI in the ICU was 24.4%, with 79.5% of the cases comprising stage 2 or higher PI at initial diagnosis [8]. The occurrence of PI is related to a prolonged treatment period, which increases the cost of hospitalization [9] and the incidence of mortality and complications if not treated appropriately [10]. Therefore, it is urgent to establish protocols for the prevention and early detection of MDRPI as well as general PI [11].

The current MDRPI prevention protocol is based on international evidence-based PI guidelines [12], but its use in clinical practice is limited due to the wide variety of medical devices associated with MDRPI and the difficulty of easily changing their location due to the nature of medical devices [13]. Therefore, a systematic review of ICU MDRPI protocols is needed to provide an empirical basis for the development of PI prevention algorithms applicable in the ICU. This study aims to integrate the literature on the protocols for medical device-related pressure injury prevention among critically ill patients of all ages.

Methods

Study design

This study was a systematic review that investigated the interventions for MDRPI prevention among critically ill patients. The review protocol was registered (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022346450). The literature search and selection were performed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [14] and the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) checklist for systematic reviews [15].

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria are delineated using PICO-SD (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study Design) framework as follows: (1) P: Critically ill patients with MDRPI, (2) I: PI prevention protocol, (3) C and (4) O: Not specified during the literature search, and (5) SD: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental designs. Furthermore, literature written in both Korean and English languages was encompassed in the study selection process. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the patient already had a medical device-related injury prior to ICU admission, and (2) the study involved animals.

Data search and collection process

Data search strategy

We searched databases based on the Core Standard Ideal (COSI) model theory [16], and selected PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), EMBASE (https://www.embase.com/), Cochrane Library (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/), and CINAHL (https://search.ebscohost.com/), which are mainly used in the medical field. Three information retrieval experts carried out a methodologically sound search for the literature.

Regarding search terms, we used MeSH terms in PubMed and Cochrane Library, and Emtree terms in EMBASE. We also added related natural language and converted it into search expressions by combining Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) between search terms. For the high sensitivity, we searched the literature using a combination of terms corresponding to P and I without specifying the terms of C and O.

As for P (critically ill patients with MDRPI), MeSH terms, including “Critical Care,” “Critical Illness,” “Intensive Care Units,” “Hospitalization,” “Life Support Care,” “Equipment and Supplies,” and “Pressure Ulcer”; and Emtree terms, including “intensive care,” “critical illness,” “intensive care unit,” “intensive care medicine,” “hospitalization,” “long term care,” “medical device,” “decubitus,” and “medical device related pressure ulcer,” as well as natural languages, were selected as search terms.

Regarding I (PI prevention protocol), MeSH terms, including “prevention and control,” “Clinical Protocols,” “Patient Care Bundles,” and “Algorithms”; and Emtree terms, including “prevention,” “clinical protocol,” “care bundle,” and “algorithm,” as well as natural languages, were selected as search terms. All studies published after 1975 were included in the initial search. The search was conducted between August 5 and August 21, 2022. After deduplication, 2,121 articles were retrieved, and the final search expression is presented in Table S1.

Screening process and data extraction

The 2,121 retrieved articles were organized in Excel and ENDNOTE, and two researchers independently reviewed the literature. In the first step, the titles and abstracts were reviewed to select articles to be included in the study. In the second step, the full texts were reviewed to select articles for inclusion in the study, and any disagreements were resolved through discussion. Twelve articles were finally selected (Fig. 1), and their authors, study titles, journal names, years, volumes (issues), ICU, patient disease, MDRPI areas, MDRPI staging tool, type of medical device causing injury, sample size (experimental and control group), type of intervention, MDRPI prevention instruments, intervention time/session/frequency, primary outcome, and secondary outcome (if applied) were noted.

Quality appraisal and synthesis of results

The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (ROB 2) was used to assess RCT quality, and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) version 2.0 was used to assess non-RCT quality [14]. Two authors independently assessed the full text of each article and then reached a consensus on the conclusions. The final 12 articles were then integrated through a qualitative synthesis method.

Results

Study selection

A total of 12 articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria. According to the search strategy, 2,841 articles were retrieved, 535 from PubMed, 1,440 from EMBASE, 138 from the Cochrane Library, and 728 from CINAHL. After excluding duplicates, 2,121 articles were reviewed. Two researchers reviewed the titles and abstracts and excluded 2,075 articles based on the exclusion criteria. We reviewed the full text of 46 articles, out of which we excluded 34 articles for the following reasons: not an experimental or quasi-experimental study (25 studies), not a study on MDRPI (7 studies), and not in English or Korean (2 studies) (Fig. 1). The assessments of the risk of bias in the selected articles are presented in Table 1; Fig. 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow chart for the literature selection process

Full size image
Table 1 Risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) (N = 8)
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias in randomized trials (N = 4)

Full size image

Characteristics of included studies and participants

Of the 12 studies, 8 were non-RCTs (Table 1) and 4 were RCTs (Fig. 2). Five studies included adult ICU patients, five included pediatric patients, one included both adults and pediatric patients, and one did not report patient age. Articles were published in 2008 (n = 1), 2012 (n = 1), 2013 (n = 1), 2015 (n = 1), 2017 (n = 1), 2018 (n = 1), 2019 (n = 1), 2020 (n = 1), 2021 (n = 2), and 2022 (n = 2) (Table 2).

Characteristics of MDRPI

Among the 12 papers, the types of medical devices and sites where PIs occurred varied. One article did not specify a medical device and included all medical devices, with others including respiratory system-related masks or tubes (n = 6), endo-tracheal (ETT) and nasogastric tubes (NGT) (n = 3), continuous electroencephalographic (cEEG) electrodes (n = 1), and a foley catheter-related PI in a male patient (n = 1) (Table 2). Therefore, as the site of the MDRPI, the face (nose, nostrils, lips, and cheeks) (n = 11) and medical device insertion sites (below or above stoma, under twill ties, ETT or NGT insertion site, SpO2 contacts, and urinary meatus) were often assessed (Table 2). As for MDRPI staging tools, most of the papers used the pressure ulcer staging system checklist (PUSS) developed by the NPIAP (National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel) [29, 30] (n = 5) (Table 2). Other studies used a standardized assessment tool designed by the researchers (n = 5) [31, 32] and other tools (n = 2) (Table 2).

Characteristics and effects of MDRPI prevention interventions for critically ill patients

For MDRPI prevention interventions, seven articles used care bundles or guidelines that included assessment, documentation, and performance frequency for MDRPI prevention; two articles used protective dressings at the site of medical device application; two articles used specially designed equipment; and one article designed a nursing intervention that included cleaning, catheter placement, cushioning dressings, and immobilization methods such a special positioning of the device to distribute skin pressure (Table 3). The shortest interval between MDRPI assessment was 30 min [21], and in most papers, the interval was 3 to 4 h (n = 3) (Table 3). Interventions most often included an interprofessional team approach (n = 5), followed by those provided by nurses (n = 4) (Table 3).

Primary and secondary outcomes of studies in this systematic review

The primary outcome assessed in studies included in this systematic review was the change in the incidence or occurrence rate of MDRPI among critically ill patients after the application of interventions. The study found that in most cases (n = 9), MDRPI was significantly lower post-intervention compared to pre-intervention (Table 4). Specifically, this study reported reductions in MDRPI rates from 13.4 to 0.89% [18], 8.5–3.5% [19], 8.1–0.3% [20], 96.7–53.3% or 40% [21], 90–32.1% [23], 77.8–13.1% [23], 30.4–18.1% [24], 12.1–0.86% [25], 72.6–43.3% [26], 28.6–24.1% [28], and 67.3–38.6% [28] before and after intervention, respectively (Table 4). Regarding secondary outcomes, besides the incidence rate, notable findings included a decrease in abscesses and infections related to the PI from 22.2% pre-intervention to 0% post-intervention (n = 1) [19]. The duration until a PI occurred was also significantly different between the intervention and control groups (n = 2) [20, 21], and the median survival times of the nasal skin integrity were significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group (n = 1) [26]. Additionally, the comfort level of patients was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group, and the degree of tracheal tube displacement was significantly less in the intervention group than in the control group (n = 1) [25] (Table 4).

Quality assessment

The quality of RCT studies (n = 4) was assessed using ROB 2 (Fig. 2), and the risk of bias in Non-RCT studies (n = 8) was assessed using ROBINS-I (Table 1). According to the ROB 2 evaluation, the overall biases were categorized as high risk (n = 1) and some concerns (n = 3) (Fig. 2). Conversely, the overall biases using ROBINS-I were classified as critical (n = 1), serious (n = 4), and moderate (n = 3) (Table 1).

Table 2 General characteristics of included studies (N = 12)
Full size table
Table 3 Characteristics of studies included in this systematic review (N = 12)
Full size table
Table 4 Primary and secondary outcomes of studies in this systematic review (N = 12)
Full size table

Discussion

PIs in critically ill patients adversely affect patient outcomes [33]. Since 2016, when the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel revised the PI staging system to include damage caused by medical devices [34], medical devices have been recognized as a significant risk factor for PI [30]. Against this backdrop, this systematic review aimed to investigate the literature on the protocols for MDRPI prevention among critically ill patients of all ages. Fourteen studies met our inclusion criteria, only adult (n = 5), from neonate to pediatric (n = 2), not reported or mixed age (n = 2). The majority (62.5%) in the non-randomized studies (n = 8) were assessed as serious to critical bias, and just 37.5% were classified as moderate bias. In the RCT studies (n = 4), the risk of biases were some concerns (n = 3), and high risk (n = 1). Our results highlight the need for the development of evidence-based RCT studies.

The pre-intervention MDRPI incidence varied from 8.1 to 96.7%, which includes the stage I PI (intact skin with non-blanchable redness of a localized area) [23, 30]; this range was higher than that of 0.9–41.2% in a previous study of critically ill patients [35]. It is believed the incidence of MDRPIs was significantly reduced in the studies using MDRPI prevention strategies, including careful assessment, accurate documentation, protective dressings to prevent MDRPIs, selection of appropriately sized medical devices, and proper immobilization to prevent tissue damage.

The ICUs implementing prevention strategies in this study were from various departments, and the age of the population was almost equally divided between adults and pediatric patients. Even with MDRPI occurring in the same site, protective dressing options for adults and neonatal or pediatric might be different for the following reasons: Nostrils of neonatal and pediatric are so small that only thin dressings are applicable, and a dressing without adhesion poses a risk of entering into the nasal cavity [26]. In this study, thin foam dressing was used in the neonatal study [22], but multiple layers of gauze were used in the adult study [25]. These results cannot be generalized, but when applying the MDRPI prevention strategies, confirming whether it suits the participants’ age will be crucial.

MDRPI prevention strategies in most studies focused on preventing PIs caused by the specific medical devices studied, most of which were respiratory-related [17, 20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. In a study that included all medical devices that cause skin, tissue, and mucosal damage without specifying a particular medical device, PIs occurred 100% of the time in nares [18]. This is probably because respiratory support devices are used for the longest time among critically ill patients. It is often difficult for critically ill patients to avoid the development of PI, despite the implementation of PI prevention nursing care, due to uncontrollable external and internal factors [6]. Interventions were performed to prevent PI from electrode-related injury and its secondary infections in premature infants [19]. In premature infants, it may take four weeks or more for the skin barrier to form [36]; thus, care should be taken with continuous monitoring due to a potential for PI at the electrode attachment site.

This systematic review identified seven articles that employed evidence-based care bundles or guidelines for MDRPI prevention interventions [17,18,19,20, 22, 24, 27]. These studies predominantly adopted a multidisciplinary approach, incorporating nurse education, PI assessment, PI documentation, and various PI interventions as part of their strategies. Through an interprofessional team approach, respiratory therapists trained nurses on how to properly release and reattach the continuous positive airway pressure/ bilevel positive airway pressure (CPAP/BiPAP) mask using the straps, while the charge nurse periodically assessed the skin and immediately recorded any redness or breakdown of skin using a prescribed form; the wound, ostomy, and continence nurse performed pressure redistribution using thin foam [17]. In another paper, the SKINCARE bundle [18] was used to help nurses assess, document, ensure hygiene, reposition, and provide emerging therapies for MDRPI prevention (e.g., protective dressings for high-risk areas and selecting the right size of device for the individual) [18, 20]. These evidence-based interventions appeared to be effective, as MDRPI incidence was lower post-intervention than pre-intervention in studies using evidence-based care bundles or guidelines, except one [22]. As even nurses can have difficulty handling medical devices [19], and physician consent is often required to resize or reposition medical devices to fit the patient [37], a multidisciplinary approach to MDRPI prevention strategies in ICU patients would be more effective. Moreover, in the case of MDRPI in the ICU, 79.5% of the cases involved stage 2 or higher PIs at the first detection [8]; thus, early detection through routine assessment is likely to be crucial for patient prognosis.

Interventions included cleaning the surface area [18, 19, 24, 28], choosing the right size of medical equipment [18, 23], applying protective dressings [17, 18, 20,21,22,23, 26,27,28], repositioning [17, 18, 23, 24, 27, 28], elimination of pressure and friction [24], protection against forces of pressure and friction (maintenance of stable skin temperature, optimizing nutritional status, and promotion of mobility) [24], and the designing of a new suction device [25]. Dressing types primarily included hydrocolloid foam dressings [17, 18, 20, 26], but transparent hydrocolloid formulations were also used in some cases to allow observation of the skin beneath the device [21, 22]. In the case of MDRPI, it is not easy to observe before removing the medical device; thus, it is believed that the appropriate use of transparent hydrocolloid dressings may be beneficial. A study comparing Tegasorb and Tegaderm found a reduction in the incidence of PIs compared to a no-dressing control group, with no significant difference between dressing types [19]. These results, however, were based on facial skin lesions in adult patients [21]; thus, replication studies with different subjects and body part injuries are required.

Most of the MDRPI assessment tools in this study used the PUSS checklist developed by the NPUAP [19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30]. However, as various MDRPIs can present with lesions at different sites, modified or investigator-standardized staging tools were more commonly used [17, 18, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28]. The most critical factor in MDRPI prevention involves the accurate measurement of the extent of skin and underlying tissues injury. However, not only do MDRPIs develop more rapidly than non-MDRPIs [38], but it is often difficult to accurately assess the skin underneath a medical device [12]; thus, it is essential to specialize the staging tool according to the type of medical device and site of occurrence.

Limitations

Despite the significance of this study, there are a few limitations to be acknowledged. First, the MDRPIs included in this study used different medical devices, various patients, protocols, and providers. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized, and it is necessary to conduct repeated RCT studies on MDRPI protocols applicable to specific participants. Secondly, a meta-analysis is more appropriate when a set of studies investigates identical or closely related relationships and is derived from similar research designs. In the present study, we have included studies with heterogeneity in terms of study quality, subjects, outcome variables, and intervention methods. Therefore, we have opted for a qualitative synthesis method instead of conducting a meta-analysis. Thirdly, another significant limitation lies in the absence of skin tone information for the participants in the studies. Consequently, we could not evaluate how diverse skin tones might influence MDRPI or impact the effectiveness of MDRPI prevention strategies. Finally, many studies were conducted as quality improvement projects, and the quality assessment showed that the papers were not of high quality, suggesting a need for higher quality evidence.

Conclusions

MDRPI prevention was found to be associated with a decreased incidence of MDRPI in patients of different ages in a variety of ICUs. MDRPI prevention strategies included nurse education/PI assessment/PI documentation/PI interventions (hygiene, repositioning, emergent therapy). PI dressings primarily included hydrocolloid foam dressings, but transparent hydrocolloid formulations were also effective in reducing the incidence of MDRPI. Depending on the age group, the utilization of different PI dressings may be necessary. Therefore, a specialized interprofessional team approach is needed depending on the type of medical device and site of the occurrence. Since it is difficult to detect MDRPI early, it is necessary to educate and support nurses to develop competency in MDRPI assessment and care while establishing a systematic nursing record system that can support appropriate documentation, including images, to build a better healthcare system.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

MDRPI:

medical device-related pressure injury

PI:

pressure injury

ICU:

intensive care unit

RCT:

randomized controlled trial

PRISMA:

preferred reporting items of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

PICO:

population, intervention, control, and outcomes

COSI:

core standard ideal

ROB:

risk of bias

ROBINS-I:

risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions

ETT:

endo-tracheal tube

NGT:

nasogastric tube

PUSS:

pressure ulcer staging system

NPUAP:

national pressure ulcer advisory panel

PU:

pressure ulcer

CPAP:

continuous positive airway pressure

BiPAP:

bilevel positive airway pressure

References

  1. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, EUAP. Pressure ulcer treatment recommendations. Prevention and treatment of pressure Ulcer: Clinical Practice Guideline. N. EPUAP, Editor. Washington, DC: NPUAP & EPUAP; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  2. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline. In: The International Guideline. 2019. https://www.biosanas.com.br/uploads/outros/artigos_cientificos/127/956e02196892d7140b9bb3cdf116d13b.pdf. Accessed 5.5.2022.

  3. Linder-Ganz E, Engelberg S, Scheinowitz M, Gefen A. Pressure-time cell death threshold for albino rat skeletal muscles as related to pressure sore biomechanics. J Biomech. 2006;39:2725–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.08.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mervis JS, Phillips TJ. Pressure ulcers: pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors, and presentation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81(4):881–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.069

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim EJ, Lim JY, Ryu JS, Cho SH, Bae NR, Kim SS. A stay time optimization model emergency medical center (EMC). J Korean Acad Soc Home Health Care Nurs. 2011;18:81–7.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cox J. Pressure injury risk factors in adult critical care patients: a review of the literature. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2017;63:30–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Alshahrani B, Sim J, Middleton R. Nursing interventions for pressure injury prevention among critically ill patients: a systematic review. J Clin Nurs. 2021;30:2151–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ko EJ, Choi SH. Factors associated with pressure injuries among critically ill patients in a coronary care unit. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2022;35:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000872172.83299.0d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nghiem S, Campbell J, Walker RM, Byrnes J, Chaboyer W. Pressure injuries in Australian public hospitals: a cost of illness study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022;130:104191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Han Y, Jin Y, Jin T, Lee SM, Lee JY. Impact of pressure injuries on patient outcomes in a Korean hospital: a case-control study. J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs. 2019;46:194–200. https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000000528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Black JM, Cuddigan JE, Walko MA, Didier LA, Lander MJ, Kelpe MR. Medical device related pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients. Int Wound J. 2010;7:358–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2010.00699.x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Seong YM, Lee H, Seo JM. Development and testing of an algorithm to prevent medical device-related pressure injuries. Inquiry. 2021;58:00469580211050219. https://doi.org/10.1177/00469580211050219

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Rashvand F. Incidence and risk factors for medical device-related pressure ulcers: the first report in this regard in Iran. Int Wound J. 2020;17:436–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2019.

  15. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Bidwell S. Database selection and search strategy optimization: the COSI search protocol [abstract]. In: 16th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2000.

  17. Arundel L, Irani E, Barkema G. Reducing the incidence of medical device-related pressure injuries from use of CPAP/BiPAP masks: a quality improvement project. J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs. 2021;48:108–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000000742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tayyib N, Asiri MY, Danic S, Sahi SL, Lasafin J, Generale LF, et al. The effectiveness of the SKINCARE bundle in preventing medical-device related pressure injuries in critical care units: a clinical trial. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2021;34:75–80. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000725184.13678.80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mietzsch U, Cooper KL, Harris ML. Successful reduction in electrode-related pressure ulcers during EEG monitoring in critically ill neonates. Adv Neonatal Care. 2019;19:262–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000000641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boesch RP, Myers C, Garrett T, Nie A, Thomas N, Chima A, et al. Prevention of tracheostomy-related pressure ulcers in children. Pediatrics. 2012;129:e792–7. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-0649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Weng MH. The effect of protective treatment in reducing pressure ulcers for non-invasive ventilation patients. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2008;24:295–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2007.11.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Krzyzewski JJ, Rogers KK, Ritchey AM, Farmer CR, Harman AS, Machry JS. Reducing device-related pressure injuries associated with noninvasive ventilation in the neonatal intensive care unit. Respir Care. 2022;67:24–33. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.08850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zakaria AY, Taema KM, Ismael MS, Elhabashy S. Impact of a suggested nursing protocol on the occurrence of medical device-related pressure ulcers in critically ill patients. Cent Eur J Nurs Midwifery. 2018;9:924. https://doi.org/10.15452/CEJNM.2018.09.0025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Coyer F, Gardner A, Doubrovsky A, Cole R, Ryan FM, Allen C et al. Reducing pressure injuries in critically ill patients by using a patient skin integrity care bundle (InSPiRE). Am J Crit Care. 2015;24:199–209. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2015930. PMID: 25934716.

  25. Qian Y, Lu H. Design and clinical application effect analysis of a new type of oral fluid suction device for patients with orotracheal intubation. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2022;2022:6057115. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6057115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen J, Chen J, Yang J, Chen Y, Liang Y, Lin Y. Investigating the efficacy of hydrocolloid dressing for preventing nasotracheal tube-related pressure injury in the PICU. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2020;21:e752–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000002494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Widiati E, Nurhaeni N, Gayatri D. Medical-device related pressure injuries to children in the intensive care unit. Compr Child Adolesc Nurs. 2017;40:69–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694193.2017.1386973

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rassin M, Markovski I, Fishlov A, Naveh RU. An evaluation of preventing pressure ulcers in the urinary meatus. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2013;32:95–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0b013e31826bc65f

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Black J, Baharestani M, Cuddigan J, Dorner B, Edsberg L, Langemo D, et al. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel’s updated pressure ulcer staging system. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2007;20:269–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000269314.23015.e9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Edsberg LE, Black JM, Goldberg M, McNichol L, Moore L, Sieggreen M. Revised national pressure ulcer advisory panel pressure injury staging system: revised pressure injury staging system. J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs. 2016;43:585–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000000281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Langemo DK, Olson B, Hanson D, Burd C, Cathcart-Silberberg T, Hunter S, et al. Prevalence of pressure ulcers in five patient care settings. J Enteros Ther. 1990;17:187–92.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Thoroddsen A. Pressure sore prevalence: a national survey. J Clin Nurs. 1999;8:170–9. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2702.1999.00221.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chaboyer W, Lin F, Thalib L, Harbeck E, Bull C, Coyer F, et al. Incidence and prevalence of pressure injuries in adult intensive care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e1074–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pressure injury definition and descriptions from the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP). 2016 Staging Consensus Conference. http://www.npuap.org/resources/educational-and-clinical-resources/npuappressure-injury-stages/. Accessed 5.5.2023.

  35. Barakat-Johnson M, Lai M, Wand T, Li M, White K, Coyer F. The incidence and prevalence of medical device-related pressure ulcers in intensive care: a systematic review. J Wound Care. 2019;28:512–21. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2019.28.8.512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Fluhr JW, Darlenski R, Taieb A, Hachem JP, Baudouin C, Msika P, et al. Functional skin adaptation in infancy—almost complete but not fully competent. Exp Dermatol. 2010;19:483–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0625.2009.01023.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rego MAC, Martinez FE. Comparison of two nasal prongs for application of continuous positive airway pressure in neonates. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2002;3:239–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/00130478-200207000-00007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kayser SA, VanGilder CA, Ayello EA, Lachenbruch C. Prevalence and analysis of medical device-related pressure injuries: results from the international pressure ulcer prevalence survey. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2018;31:276–85. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000532475.11971.aa

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by the Gachon University research fund of 2022 (GCU-202206180001) and the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (N0. RS-2023-00239665)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Red Cross College of Nursing, Chung-Ang University, 84 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-Gu, Seoul, 06974, South Korea

    Haeyoung Lee

  2. College of Nursing, Gachon University, 191, Hambangmoe-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, 21936, South Korea

    Seunghye Choi

Authors
  1. Haeyoung Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seunghye Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, S. C.; methodology, S. C. and H. L.; validation, H. L. and S. C. formal analysis, S. C. and H. L; data curation, S. C. and H. L.; writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, H. L. and S. C.; visualization, S. C. and H. L.; supervision, H. L.; project administration, S. C.; funding acquisition, S. C. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seunghye Choi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of G University (IRB No. 1044396-202207-HR-133-01), and the need for ethics approval and consent was waived.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, H., Choi, S. Protocols and their effects for medical device-related pressure injury prevention among critically ill patients: a systematic review. BMC Nurs 23, 403 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02080-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02080-y

Keywords

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

Contact us