Aktuelle Ernährungsmedizin 2017; 42(03): 241-272
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1603239
Freie Mitteilungen
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

NUTRITIONAL INTERVENTIONS IN PATIENTS WITH (RISK OF) PRESSURE ULCERS

Authors

  • D Eglseer

    1   Medizinische Universität Graz, Institut für Pflegewissenschaft, Graz, Armenia

  • C Lohrmann

    2   Medizinische Universität Graz, Institut für Pflegewissenschaft, Graz, Aruba
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 June 2017 (online)

Also available at
 
 

Introduction:

Pressure ulcers (PUs) lead to serious consequences for hospitalized patients, e.g. pain or diminished quality of life. Due to associated health care costs, PUs are seen as a substantial economic burden for health care systems. According to the current literature as well as the evidence-based guidelines of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP), nutrition is a fundamental part of PU prevention and treatment.

Objectives:

Therefore, it was the aim of the study to assess nutritional interventions in hospitalized patients (1) at risk of PUs and (2) with PUs.

Methods:

A cross-sectional, multi-center study was conducted in Austrian general hospitals. Data collection was completed on one single day (Nov 16th, 2016) by two nurses per ward using a standardized questionnaire. Risk for PU was assessed by a question to the nurses. PUs were identified and categorized through skin inspection at the day of measurement. Interventions were assessed by interviewing patients and checking patient charts. For data analysis, descriptive statistics, contingency tables and χ2 test were used.

Results:

2878 patients participated in the study, about 60% were 65 years older. 11.7% of the patients were at risk of developing a PU. 3.3% showed a PU during skin inspection, whereas 2.4% had PUs category 2 and higher. 1.6% of all PUs were hospital-acquired. The most frequently applied nutritional interventions for at-risk patients were giving the patients food specifically desired (41.7%), referral to a dietitian (22.4%) and adjustment of meal consistency (21.9). In patients with PUs category 2 and higher, the preferred measures were food specifically desired (44.9), adjustment of meal consistency and energy/protein enriched snacks (24.6%). There were no significant differences in the frequency of interventions between at-risk patients and patients with PU. However, the percentage of patients who did not receive any intervention differed significantly between patients with PU risk (26.9%) and patients with PUs category 2 or higher (16%) (p = 0.05).

Conclusion:

Even though protein requirements increase in PU patients, only one quarter of the patients with PUs received energy/protein-enriched snacks. Furthermore, 16% of PU patients received no nutritional intervention at all. From all patients with PU risk nearly 30% did not get preventive interventions. The current nutritional practice in PU treatment and prevention leaves scope for improvement. An interdisciplinary approach is recommended.

Disclosure of Interest:

None declared.


No conflict of interest has been declared by the author(s).