Evidence Appraisal for a Pressure Injury Protocol
A medical-surgical unit has a pressure injury rate of 4.1 per 1,000 patient days, above the hospital target of 2.0. The unit manager proposes buying a new alternating-pressure mattress for every bed, citing a vendor study that reported a 60% reduction. The study enrolled 40 patients in one nursing home, was not blinded, and had no control group. A staff nurse suggests instead a turn-team protocol with a checklist and skin assessment every shift, citing two systematic reviews. The hospital has limited capital funds this year, and the unit has 32 beds.
1. Appraise both proposals using levels of evidence and study quality. Which would you recommend first, and why?
Read the worked answer
Vendor study: A single-group, unblinded study of 40 nursing-home residents with no control group is low-level evidence. Without a comparison group, any improvement could come from staff attention, better turning, or seasonal variation. The 60% figure is a relative reduction in a small sample and cannot be assumed to transfer to a 32-bed acute care unit. The vendor's financial interest is a conflict of interest that raises the risk of bias.
Systematic reviews: Two systematic reviews sit near the top of the evidence hierarchy because they pool multiple studies. They support repositioning and skin assessment as core prevention measures. Their quality still needs checking: look at whether the reviews included randomized trials, how they assessed risk of bias, and whether the populations resemble ours.
Recommendation: Start with the turn-team protocol and checklist, because it is supported by higher-quality evidence, costs little, and can be implemented now. The mattress is not proven superior and would consume most of the capital budget. If the mattress is considered later, use it as an addition after basic prevention is reliable, and evaluate it with our own data.
Key principle: match the strength of the recommendation to the strength of the evidence, not to the confidence of the salesperson.
2. Design a quality improvement plan with measures and a way to know whether the change worked.
Read the worked answer
Aim: Reduce pressure injuries from 4.1 to below 2.5 per 1,000 patient days within 6 months, with a stretch goal of 2.0.
Changes to test (Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles):
- Test the turn checklist on one 8-bed pod for 2 weeks, then spread.
- Assign a turn-team buddy per shift and document turns at the bedside.
- Add a skin assessment at admission and every shift, with a photo-free body map in the record.
- Educate staff in short huddles rather than a single long class.
Measures:
- Outcome: pressure injury rate per 1,000 patient days, including stage and location.
- Process: percentage of documented turns on time, percentage of shifts with a completed skin assessment, and checklist completion.
- Balancing: staff time per turn, missed turns due to staffing, and patient sleep disruption.
Knowing whether it worked: Plot the outcome rate monthly on a run chart and look for a sustained shift rather than one good month. Compare the pilot pod with another pod if possible. If process measures improve but the injury rate does not, check whether high-risk patients are being identified correctly.
Governance: Review results monthly with bedside staff, share data openly, and revisit the mattress decision only after basic prevention is reliable. Document the decision and its rationale so the choice is transparent.