The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Are strategies, including mechanical and traditional repositioning, effective for pressure ulcer prevention?

Are strategies, including mechanical and traditional repositioning, effective for pressure ulcer prevention?
Are strategies, including mechanical and traditional repositioning, effective for pressure ulcer prevention?
Pressure ulcers represent a debilitating condition for patients and present a significant challenge for healthcare professionals. To determine the risk of pressure ulcer development, patients are typically assessed with pressure ulcer risk assessment scales. Bedbound patients deemed at risk of pressure ulcers may receive a range of interventions, including regular repositioning by nursing staff. However, this is resource intensive and could be augmented by
mechanical lateral rotation systems, although there is a paucity of research examining these systems.

Several experimental studies were conducted, utilising physical output parameters and comfort assessments to examine the efficacy and acceptability of two lateral rotation systems, when compared to traditional repositioning, in cohorts of healthy participants. In addition, a study sought to determine the inter-practitioner variability of traditional repositioning. An integrative
review of pressure ulcer risk assessments scales was further undertaken, to update and extend previous reviews.
A number of differences were observed in the physical and comfort data, some ofwhich were device dependent. A trend towards fewer instances of compromised tissue viability was observed during traditional repositioning, although some participants preferred turning by means of a lateral rotation system. Considerable variation was noted in the repositioning technique employed by practitioners, even after written guidance, and offloading of vulnerable areas was not always achieved. Ninety-four risk assessment scales were identified, but only 15% of these scales were assessed for inter-rater reliability. The methodological quality of such studies was often poor.

Lateral rotation systems may provide an adjunct to repositioning by traditional methods, but the design is important, both in terms of efficacy and acceptability. Practitioners should be provided with practical training, focusing on the procedural aspects of repositioning. Further high-quality primary research is required to evaluate existing riskassessment scales.



University of Southampton
Woodhouse, Marjolein
9e0d64cc-325f-4dd5-a15e-f54fa5b37b7f
Woodhouse, Marjolein
9e0d64cc-325f-4dd5-a15e-f54fa5b37b7f
Bader, Daniel
9884d4f6-2607-4d48-bf0c-62bdcc0d1dbf
Voegeli, David
e6f5d112-55b0-40c1-a6ad-8929a2d84a10

Woodhouse, Marjolein (2016) Are strategies, including mechanical and traditional repositioning, effective for pressure ulcer prevention? University of Southampton, Doctoral Thesis, 334pp.

Record type: Thesis (Doctoral)

Abstract

Pressure ulcers represent a debilitating condition for patients and present a significant challenge for healthcare professionals. To determine the risk of pressure ulcer development, patients are typically assessed with pressure ulcer risk assessment scales. Bedbound patients deemed at risk of pressure ulcers may receive a range of interventions, including regular repositioning by nursing staff. However, this is resource intensive and could be augmented by
mechanical lateral rotation systems, although there is a paucity of research examining these systems.

Several experimental studies were conducted, utilising physical output parameters and comfort assessments to examine the efficacy and acceptability of two lateral rotation systems, when compared to traditional repositioning, in cohorts of healthy participants. In addition, a study sought to determine the inter-practitioner variability of traditional repositioning. An integrative
review of pressure ulcer risk assessments scales was further undertaken, to update and extend previous reviews.
A number of differences were observed in the physical and comfort data, some ofwhich were device dependent. A trend towards fewer instances of compromised tissue viability was observed during traditional repositioning, although some participants preferred turning by means of a lateral rotation system. Considerable variation was noted in the repositioning technique employed by practitioners, even after written guidance, and offloading of vulnerable areas was not always achieved. Ninety-four risk assessment scales were identified, but only 15% of these scales were assessed for inter-rater reliability. The methodological quality of such studies was often poor.

Lateral rotation systems may provide an adjunct to repositioning by traditional methods, but the design is important, both in terms of efficacy and acceptability. Practitioners should be provided with practical training, focusing on the procedural aspects of repositioning. Further high-quality primary research is required to evaluate existing riskassessment scales.



Text
Final Thesis 2017-03-06 - Version of Record
Available under License University of Southampton Thesis Licence.
Download (5MB)

More information

Published date: October 2016
Organisations: University of Southampton, Faculty of Health Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 411975
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/411975
PURE UUID: fa58703b-cf56-47bc-9209-b9c734485451
ORCID for Daniel Bader: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-1208-3507
ORCID for David Voegeli: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3457-7177

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 03 Jul 2017 16:31
Last modified: 14 Mar 2019 01:37

Export record

Contributors

Author: Marjolein Woodhouse
Thesis advisor: Daniel Bader ORCID iD
Thesis advisor: David Voegeli ORCID iD

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×