|
If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | |||||||
  Journal of the American Geriatrics SocietyVolume 53 Issue 10, Pages 1721 - 1729 Published Online: 4 Aug 2005 Journal compilation 2010 The American Geriatrics Society/Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 103K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking  The National Pressure Ulcer Long-Term Care Study: Outcomes of Pressure Ulcer Treatments in Long-Term Care Copyright © 2005 by the American Geriatrics Society KEYWORDS pressure ulcers • treatment • nutrition • older adults • nursing homes • long-term care ABSTRACTObjectives: To identify resident, wound, and treatment characteristics associated with pressure ulcer (PrU) healing in long-term care residents. Design: Retrospective cohort study with convenience sampling. Setting: Ninety-five long-term care facilities participating in the National Pressure Ulcer Long-Term Care Study throughout the United States. Participants: Eight hundred eighty-two residents, aged 18 and older, with length of stay of 14 days or longer, who had at least one Stage II to IV PrU. Measurements: Data collected for each resident over a 12-week period included resident characteristics, treatment characteristics, and change in PrU area. Data were obtained from medical records, Minimum Data Set, and other records. Results: Two multiple regression models, one for each stage grouping (Stage II, Stage III and IV), were completed. The area of Stage II PrU was reduced more with moist (F=21.91, P<.001) than with dry (F=13.41, P<.001) dressings. PrUs cleaned with saline or soap showed less decrease in area (F=12.34, P<.001) than PrUs cleaned with other cleansers such as antiseptic, antibiotic, or commercial cleansers. Change in area of Stage III and IV PrUs was related to sufficient enteral feeding (F=5.23, P=.02), enteral feeding without higher acuity levels (F=3.94, P=.048), size of PrU (very large (F=120.89, P=.001) and large (F=27.82, P=.001)), and type of dressing (moist (F=14.70, P<.001) and dry (F=5.88, P=.02)). Stage III and IV PrUs increased in area when debrided (F=5.97, P=.02). The overall models were significant (Stage III and IV, F=20.30, coefficient of determination (R Conclusion: In this sample of nursing facility residents, use of moist dressings (Stage II, Stage III and IV) and adequate nutritional support (Stage III and IV) are strong predictors of PrU healing. | 
|
