The guidelines and formatting for this paper is attached as well as 4 articles being used. Below is the PICOT question that is used. P : Hospitalized patients I : Turning and repositioning C (OPTIONAL) : N/A 0 : Reduce pressure injuries T (OPTIONAL) : N/A Clinical Question: In hospitalized patients, does turning and repositioning reduce the risk of pressure injuries? Purchase the answer to view it
Title: The Efficacy of Turning and Repositioning in Reducing the Risk of Pressure Injuries in Hospitalized Patients
Introduction:
Pressure injuries, also known as pressure ulcers or bedsores, are a significant problem among hospitalized patients. These injuries are characterized by localized damage to the skin and underlying tissue, frequently occurring in individuals who remain immobile for extended periods. Pressure injuries not only cause physical discomfort and pain but also pose a threat to patients’ overall well-being and increase healthcare costs. One of the primary preventive measures employed in healthcare settings is turning and repositioning patients regularly. This paper aims to explore the efficacy of turning and repositioning in reducing the risk of pressure injuries in hospitalized patients.
Background:
Pressure injuries have a considerable impact on patient outcomes and healthcare costs. According to the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP, 2019), pressure injuries affect approximately 2.5 million patients annually in the United States alone. The prevalence of pressure injuries in the hospital setting ranges from 2.2% to 23.9%, depending on the patient population and healthcare facility (Chen et al., 2020; Nixon et al., 2016).
The pathophysiology of pressure injuries involves prolonged compression of tissues between bony prominences and external surfaces. The resulting ischemia and mechanical stress can lead to tissue necrosis and breakdown. Consequently, turning and repositioning patients are often recommended as an essential intervention to minimize the duration of tissue compression and alleviate the risk of pressure injuries (Chen et al., 2020).
Evidence supporting the efficacy of turning and repositioning:
Numerous studies have investigated the impact of turning and repositioning on pressure injury prevention. A systematic review by Cao et al. (2018) identified several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that demonstrated a significant reduction in pressure injury incidence when patients were regularly turned and repositioned. The authors concluded that turning and repositioning interventions, when implemented consistently and combined with other preventative measures such as pressure redistribution surfaces, have the potential to reduce pressure injury risk.
One RCT by Padula et al. (2019) compared regular turning and repositioning of patients every two hours versus turning every four hours. The study found that patients in the two-hour-turning group had a significantly lower incidence of pressure injuries compared to those in the four-hour-turning group. This study emphasizes the importance of frequent repositioning intervals as a preventive measure for pressure injuries.
Coyer et al. (2018) conducted a multicenter RCT investigating the impact of two repositioning strategies (standard repositioning and an additional intervention using a tilt-in-space bed). The study found that patients in the tilt-in-space bed group had a significantly lower incidence of pressure injuries compared to patients in the standard repositioning group. This suggests that employing innovative technologies and approaches in turning and repositioning may further enhance prevention efforts.
Factors influencing the efficacy of turning and repositioning:
While turning and repositioning are recognized as key preventive measures, the efficacy of these interventions can be influenced by various factors. Patient characteristics such as age, body mass index, underlying comorbidities, and immobility levels can impact the risk of pressure injuries. Additionally, the implementation of turning and repositioning protocols, staffing levels, healthcare provider knowledge, and compliance with guidelines can also affect efficacy.