Cargando…

Healthcare provider and patient/family perceptions of continuous pressure imaging technology for prevention of pressure injuries: A secondary analysis of patients enrolled in a randomized control trial

INTRODUCTION: Despite the availability of various pressure injury (PI) prevention strategies (e.g., risk identification, use of pressure re-distribution surfaces, frequent repositioning), they persist as a significant issue for healthcare systems worldwide. Continuous pressure imaging (CPI) is a nov...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ocampo, Wrechelle, Sola, Darlene Y., Baylis, Barry W., Conly, John M., Hogan, David B., Kaufman, Jaime, Kiplagat, Linet, Stelfox, Henry T., Ghali, William A., Ho, Chester
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9707747/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36445905
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278019
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Despite the availability of various pressure injury (PI) prevention strategies (e.g., risk identification, use of pressure re-distribution surfaces, frequent repositioning), they persist as a significant issue for healthcare systems worldwide. Continuous pressure imaging (CPI) is a novel technology that could be integrated within a comprehensive approach to the prevention of PIs. We studied the perceptions of healthcare providers and patients/families to identify facilitators and barriers to the use of this technology. METHODS: Hospitalized patients/family members from a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of CPI in preventing PIs completed a survey after 72 hours (or upon discharge from hospital) of CPI monitoring. They were asked questions about prior and current experience with CPI technology. For healthcare providers, perceptions on the use of the device and its impact on care were explored through a survey distributed by email or hard copies. RESULTS: A total of 125 healthcare providers and 525 patients/family members completed the surveys. Of the healthcare providers, 95% either agreed/strongly agreed that the CPI technology was easy to use and 65% stated that the device improved how they provided pressure relief for patients. Identified issues with the device were cost, the fitting of the mattress cover, and the fixation of the patients/families on the device. Over a quarter of the patient/family respondents agreed/strongly agreed that the device influenced how pressure relief was provided. This response was statistically associated with whether the monitor was turned on (intervention arm; 52.7%) or off (control arm; 4.2%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: CPI technology was positively perceived by healthcare providers. Most patients/families felt it influenced care when the CPI monitor was turned on. Concerns raised around cost and the ease of use of these devices by healthcare providers may affect the decisions of healthcare system administrators to adopt and implement this technology.