Authors:

Michael Clark

Background:

How do we know when an intervention has altered the natural history of a developing pressure ulcer?

Objectives:

To determine the fate of 2574 pressure-ulcer free subjects admitted to hospitals in the UK and US.

Method:

Prospective observation of a cohort of hospital patients. Results: 108 subjects developed pressure ulcers. The incidence (among the high to very-high risk group), number and severity of ulcers were similar between subjects in the UK and US. Based upon an apparently homogeneous group of 460 subjects (all at high to very high risk of developing ulcers, and confined to bed, or bed and chair) conversion rates were calculated for five types of support surface. Two distinct groups were found reflecting the use of static or alternating devices, with the lowest conversion rates observed upon static devices.

Conclusions:

This suggests either that static devices are more effective or, more probably, that the true risk of developing ulcers among subjects allocated to either device type differed.

Declaration of interest:

Study funded by Pegasus.