We've noticed you are using an out of date web browser.

This site is optimized for newer browsers, smart phones, and tablets.

Please update your browser, use a different one, or a smart phone or tablet.

Click here to see options to update your browser.

Hill-Rom® Clinical Resource Center

Helping you implement evidence-based programs with connected technologies

Hill-Rom® Clinical Resource Center

Pressure Injury Management

Pressure Injury Management

  • Pressure Ulcer Risk in the Incontinent Patient
    Lachenbruch C | Journal of Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing | 2016

    This article is an analysis of incontinence and pressure ulcers from the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ Survey. It concludes that incontinent patients had higher Braden Scale scores and higher overall and facility-acquired pressure ulcer prevalence. Incontinence was associated with an increased risk for all pressure ulcers, but especially full-thickness injuries.

  • Pressure Ulcers: More Lethal Than We Thought?
    Redelings MD, et al. | Advances in Skin & Wound Care | 2005

    This descriptive study assesses the prevalence of pressure ulcer associated deaths in the US, including associations with other conditions, such as septicemia, and demographic characteristics, such as age.  Approximately 10,000 patient die each year from complications due to pressure ulcers.

  • The Economic Measurement of Medical Errors
    Shreve J, et al. | Society of Actuaries | 2010

    This study, provided by Milliman, Inc. and sponsored by The Society of Actuaries, Health Section, measures the annual frequency of medical errors in the United States and the total measurable cost to the overall economy due to these errors. Analysis of an extensive claim database of reported medical events revealed that pressure ulcers are ranked as the most costly medical error with an annual cost of $3.86 billion.

  • Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment and Prevention: Comparative Effectiveness
    Chou R, et al. | Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality | 2013

    Pressure ulcers are a relatively common occurrence across all care settings, resulting in significant health burdens. However, risk-assement scales and preventive interventions can decrease the incidence or severity of pressure ulcers. 

  • Implementation of a Pressure Redistribution Mattress
    Walden KE | Journal of Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing | 2008

    In an effort to combat the rising cost of rental therapy products, The Jewish Hospital purchased and evaluated various mattresses from several manufacturers, observing patient comfort level and patient skin redness or breakdown over pressure points. Extensive assessment resulted in the hospital choosing the Accumax Quantum™ Convertible, a nonpowered redistribution surface, due to a 16% decrease in facility acquired pressure ulcers.  The new surface also led to a decrease in rental costs in the first year by $15,000 per month with a projected savings of $900,000 over a five year life.

  • Effects of a Nonpowered Dynamic Surface on Reducing Facility-Acquired Pressure Ulcers
    Strilko B, et al. | Journal of Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing | 2005

    Due to rising costs in specialty bed rentals and increased concern over hospital acquired pressure ulcers, Provena St. Joseph Medical Center's 350-bed hospital opted to purchase new pressure redistribution surfaces for all Med-Surg beds. Replacement of the standard foam mattress to the nonpowed, dynamic AccuMax Quantum™ Surface resulted in a 61.5% decrease in facilty-acquired pressure ulcers over a 8-month time period. 

  • The Path to Excellence: How One Facility Received and Maintained a CMS 5 Star Rating
    Onday A | 2010

    This whitepaper describes surveillance and documentation processes for quality measure, including facility-acquired pressure ulcers, weight loss, medical errors, and infection control. Quality improvement process changes incorporating the use of pressure-redistributing mattresses have improved rates and facility-acquired pressure ulcers.

  • Evaluation of the Incidence of Pressure Ulcers Using Hill-Rom VersaCare Surfaces
    Korniewicz D, et al. | Advances in Skin & Wound Care | 2011

    This study evaluated the clinical impact of the VersaCare® P500 low-air-loss surface with Advanced Microclimate® Technology for pressure ulcer prevention in 127 post operative orthopedic surgical patients.

  • Comparison of Air-Fluidized Therapy With Other Support Surfaces Used to Treat Pressure Ulcers in Nursing Home Residents
    Ochs RF, et al. | Ostomy Wound Management | 2005

    This retrospective pressure ulcer prevention and treatment study compared healing rates for different support surfaces in nursing home residents. Support surface types were categorized into 3 groups: static overlays and replacement mattresses (1); low-air-loss beds, alternating pressure, and powered/non-powered overlays/mattresses (2); and air-fluidized beds (3). Mean healing rates were as follows: 5.2 cm2/wk (Group 3); 1.8 cm2/wk (Group 2); 1.5 cm2/wk (Group 1) (P=0.007 comparing Group 3 to 1 and 2). Mean healing rates were also significantly greater for stage III/IV ulcers on Group 3 surfaces. Groups 1 and 3 had fewer hospitalizations and ER visits compared to Group 2 (P=0.01).

  • Air-Fluidized Therapy: Physical Properties and Clinical Uses
    Annals of Plastic Surgery | 2010

    This review describes the benefits and drawbacks of air-fluidized therapy compared to other support types in terms of factors known to impact skin breakdown: interface pressure, shear, friction, heat, and moisture. The clinical benefits of air-fluidized therapy include faster pressure ulcer healing, decreased rate of hospitalization and ER visits for long-term care pressure ulcer patients, and decreased mortality and increased comfort for patients with burns and inhalation injury.

  • Clinical Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness of Air Fluidized Therapy for Severe Pressure Ulcers
    Cuddigan JE, et al. | Remington Report | 2004

    This article describes how AFT is technologically different from Group 1 (Static devices / mattresses) and Group 2 (dynamic powered and non-powered mattress replacements and overlays). Using the healing rates described by Ochs, (2004) Cuddigan and Ayello model treatment costs for severe ulcers. They find a net savings of $39, 642 to heal a 49-cm2 stage III/IV ulcer when using AFT compared to Group 2 surfaces.

  • Eliminating Facility-Acquired Pressure Ulcers at Ascension Health
    Gibbons W, et al. | Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety | 2006

    Data were collected on pressure ulcer incidence in 67 acute care facilities using the SKIN bundle. Pressure ulcer incidence decreased from >2% to <1% over a 14-month period, and no new stage III/IV facility-acquired pressure ulcers developed from August 2004 through February 2006.

  • Air Fluidized Therapy Use in Patients With Suspected Deep Tissue Injury - A Case Series
    Allen L, et al. | 2011

    Patients with suspected deep tissue injuries (sDTI) were placed on the Clinitron® Rite Hite® bed, treated with standard care, and assessed until resolution of their sDTI. Out of 5 patients and 10 ulcers, 4 healed before discharge, 2 remained at discharge, and 4 became Stage II ulcers. Patients placed on air-fluidized therapy had significantly less skin breakdown than expected.

  • The Effect of Using a Low-Air-Loss Surface on the Skin Integrity of Obese Patients: Results of a Pilot Study
    Pemberton V, et al. | Ostomy Wound Management | 2009

    This study assesses the impact of a new low-air-loss, continuous lateral rotation therapy bed in 21 obese, bariatric acute care patients. During this pilot study, pressure ulcers decreased in size from an average 5.2 cm2 to 2.6 cm2, and no new pressure ulcers developed.

  • Microclimate Management: So Much More Than Just Airflow
    Lachenbruch C | 2008

    This whitepaper discusses factors impacting the skin microclimate and describes the ideal combination of airflow, temperature, and surface material for preventing skin breakdown.

  • Pressure Ulcer Incidence and Progression in Critically Ill Subjects: Influence of Low Air Loss Mattress Versus a Powered Air Pressure Redistribution Mattress
    Black J, et al. | Journal of Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing | 2012

    This study evaluated the change in existing pressure ulcers and incidence of new pressure ulcers in surgical ICU patients using a new low-air-loss, weight-based, microclimate management (LAL-MCM) system compared to the standard SICU bed with an integrated, powered air pressure redistribution (IP-AR) surface. Incidence of supine pressure ulcers was 0% in the LAL-MCM group and 18% in the IP-AR group (P=0.046), despite more comorbidities in the patients in the LAL-MCM group.

  • Role of Bed Design and Head-of-Bed Articulation on Patient Migration
    Davis K, et al | Journal of Nursing Care Quality | 2015

    Repositioning patients in bed puts both patients and caregivers at risk.  Patients experience shear and friction which are risk factors for pressure ulcers, while caregivers who are repositioning patients are at risk for lower back injuries.  This study examined the influence of hospital bed design on patient migration. Over 180 trials, Bed A (Hill-Rom® Progressa® bed system) showed 85-86% (p< 0.001) less patient migration and 34% less torso compression compared to current alternatives.  Three in four subjects preferred the Hill-Rom® Progressa® bed system. The author concludes that optimal bed design should reduce patient migration which may lead to clinically significant reductions in health risks to patients and caregivers.

  • The Demographics of Suspected Deep Tissue Injury in the United States: An Analysis of the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ Survey 2006-2009
    VanGilder C, et al. | Advances in Skin & Wound Care | 2010

    This article reports data from the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ survey 2006-2009 in patients with suspected deep tissue injury (sDTI). Overall and facility-acquired pressure ulcer prevalence was constant in 2006-2008 and decreased by about 1% in 2009 (P<0.001). The prevalence of pressure ulcers identified as sDTI increased to 9% of all observed ulcers in 2009, a 3-fold increase, while the proportion of stage I and II ulcers has decreased and stage III and IV ulcers remained constant. This increase may be due in part to education of staging definitions.

  • A Pilot Study of Pressure Ulcer Incidence and Healing of Pressure Ulcers Comparing Subjects Placed on the LAL-MCM Mattress Versus a Standard Bed SICU Mattress
    Black J, et al. | 2010

    This study evaluated the change in existing pressure ulcers and incidence of new pressure ulcers in surgical ICU patients using a new low-air-loss, weight-based, microclimate management (LAL-MCM) system compared to the standard SICU bed with an integrated, powered air pressure redistribution (IP-AR) surface. Incidence of supine pressure ulcers was 0% in the LAL-MCM group and 18% in the IP-AR group (P=0.046), despite more comorbidities in the patients in the LAL-MCM group.

  • Identifying the Right Surface for the Right Patient at the Right Time - Generation and Content Validation of an Algorithm for Support Surface Selection
    McNichol L., et al. | Journal of Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing | 2015

    A consensus conference was held to fill the void in clinical literature as to the appropriate surface technology to prevent or treat pressure ulcers.  Although the literature is clear that technology may help, no specific guidance yet exists on which surfaces are appropriate for th right patient and the right time.  This article lays the foundation for how the expert consensus panel researched, deliberated and created an algorithm for support surface selection.  It provides the first known consenses based algorithm for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment in press.

  • Pressure Ulcers: Avoidable or Unavoidable? Results of the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Consensus Conference
    Black J, et al. | Ostomy Wound Management | 2011

    The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) hosted a conference in 2010 to establish consensus on the avoidability of pressure ulcers. An overall 80% agreement was reached among representatives, with unanimous consensus reached for the following: most PrUs are avoidable; not all PrUs are avoidable; there are situations that render PrU development unavoidable, including hemodynamic instability that is worsened with physical movement and inability to maintain nutrition and hydration status and the presence of an advanced directive prohibiting artificial nutrition/hydration; pressure redistribution surfaces cannot replace turning and repositioning; and if enough pressure was removed from the external body the skin cannot always survive.

  • NPUAP and EPUAP Clinical Practice Guideline for Prevention of Pressure Ulcers
    National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel | 2014

    National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) and European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP) evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of pressure ulcers for use by health care professionals throughout the world.

  • WOCN Guideline for Prevention and Management of Pressure Ulcers
    Wound Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society | 2010

    The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society™ (WOCN®) guidelines are designed to support clinical practice by providing consistent research-based information with the goal of improving cost-effective patient outcomes as well as stimulating wound-related research.

  • NPUAP Pressure Injury Stages
    National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel | NPUAP Pressure Injury Stages

    The term “pressure injury” replaces “pressure ulcer” in the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Pressure Injury Staging System according to the NPUAP. The change also more clearly describes pressure injuries to both intact and ulcerated skin.

  • Identifying Gaps, Barriers, and Solutions in Implementing Pressure Ulcer Prevention Programs
    Jankowski I, et al. | Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety | 2011

    This project identified 3 major barriers to pressure ulcer prevention program implementation: limitations in staff education and training, poor communication of at-risk status, and insufficient quality improvement evaluation of bedside practices. The study noted insufficient clarity for selecting and securing appropriate therapy surfaces. Guidelines were identified for addressing these barriers. 

  • Pressure Ulcer Prevention Toolkit
    Joint Commisson Resources | 2012

    This toolkit provides practical and effective strategies and tools for mitigating and preventing pressure ulcers. The toolkit includes examples of organizations who have demonstrated success in preventing and treating pressure ulcers and it’s purpose is to educate staff at other organizations to apply similar strategies and initiatives

  • Safe Skin® Program

    A full toolkit designed to help you design, implement and measure a pressure injury prevention and treatment program in your facility. 

  • Pressure Injury Staging Guide and Braden Risk Assessment

    This tool is designed to help caregivers classify pressure injuries as Stages 1-4, DTIs or unstageable. It includes images and descriptions as defined by the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP).  It also includes the Braden Scale, a tool designed to help caregivers evaluate a patient's risk for developing a pressure injury.

  • WOCN® Surface Selection Algorithm - Web Tool

    The WOCN Society and Hill-Rom have teamed up to provide a web-based patient specific tool using the evidence-and consensus-based guidelines for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.

    Get the WOCN Consensus Statement

    Read the WOCN press release

  • Microclimate Management: So Much More Than Just Airflow
    Lachenbruch C | 2008

    This whitepaper discusses factors impacting the skin microclimate and describes the ideal combination of airflow, temperature, and surface material for preventing skin breakdown.

  • Prevalence and Incidence: Implications for Clinical Practice
    Goldberg M, et al. | 2016

    Inconsistency in measuring prevalence and incidence prevents facilities from benchmarking prevalence within their own facility against facilities of similar size and patient acuity.  A lunch session sponsored by Hill-Rom at WOCN 2016 focused on the importance of benchmarking prevalence and incidence, implementation strategies related to these data in the clinical setting, and how these strategies empower the WOC Nurse.

  • Pressure Ulcer Overview: A National Problem

    This course provides an overview of the incidence, prevalence and cost of pressure ulcers in the US, and reviews some clinical guidelines and initiatives that have been developed to help health care professionals reduce or prevent the occurrence of pressure ulcers. Additionally, the course discusses common barriers to implementing these guidelines.

  • Skin Basics: Anatomy & Physiology, Skin Assessment and Pressure Ulcer Staging

    This course covers the basics of skin anatomy and physiology, the components of a skin assessment, and pressure ulcer staging using the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) classification system.

  • Safe Skin: Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment

    This course covers pressure ulcer risk assessment, including formal validated risk scales to quantitatively assess pressure ulcer risk.

  • The Science of Support Surfaces: Nomenclature, Design for Performance and Selection

    This course covers the science of support services, particularly nomenclature and engineering design choices that impact surface performance.  The course also discusses surface selection guidelines and criteria.

  • Ayello, Elizabeth. FILE DOWNLOAD of Webinar on Advancing Safe Skin Across the Care Continuum
    Ayello E | 2013

    FILE DOWNLOAD of webinar presented by Elizabeth Ayello, PhD, RN, ACNS-BC, CWON, MAPWCA, FAAN designed to provide you with up-to-date information on best practices for prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. Includes latest statistics on national problem of pressure ulcers and how to address this through use of skin and risk assessments as well as the science behind surface selection

  • sDTI Challenges and Solutions
    Zulkowski K | 2013

    During the 2013 WOCN conference held in Seattle, WA, Dr. Karen Zulkowski presented a 15 minute presentation at Hill-Rom's booth featuring the latest information on suspected Deep Tissue Injury(sDTI).  This brief presentation features an overview of the February 2013 NPUAP biennial conference dedicated to sDTI state of the science, highlights sDTI IPUP trend data, and features a published sDTI case study where patients experienced less tissue breakdown than expected on the Clinitron Air Fluidized Therapy surface.

  • 2006-2015 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey Overall Results: 10 year trends (US Only)
    VanGilder C, et al. | 2016

    Pressure Ulcer (PU) prevalence allows benchmarking within and across facilities. The International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ (IPUP) Survey is unique as it includes a variety of care settings and participants include community and larger teaching facilities. The purpose of this study is to present 10 years of US prevalence data and demographic data (2006-2015) by care setting.

  • Pressure Ulcer Risk in the Incontinent Patient: Analysis of Incontinence and Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers From the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ Survey*
    Lachenbruch C, et al. | 2016

    This poster is an outline of incontinence and hospital-acquired pressure ulcer findings from the International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ Survey (IPUP). It concludes that even patients at low pressure ulcer risk by Braden risk score have increased likelihood of pressure ulcers if they are incontinent. Incontinence was associated with an increased risk for all pressure ulcers, but especially full-thickness injuries.

  • High Pressure Ulcer Risk Patients and Specialty Surface Utilization: Data From the 2010 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ Survey
    Lachenbruch C, et al. | 2011

    This study evaluated current practice trends in surface utilization for patients at high risk for developing pressure ulcers. Surface types used for high-risk patients were powered static air (28%), foam (21.7%), low air loss (16%), self-adjusting technology (8%), alternating pressure (5.2%), nonpowered static air (2.0%), and air-fluidized therapy (1.8%), demonstrating that high-risk patients were most often placed on surfaces that are inferior to specialty surfaces with regard to pressure ulcer development and breakdown. 

  • 2010 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ Survey: Canadian Results
    VanGilder C, et al. | 2011

    This study collected data on pressure ulcer prevalence and risk score, surface type, and other parameters from facility-performed IPUP surveys. Overall pressure ulcer prevalence in the acute care, LTAC, LTC, and rehab settings decreased in 2009-2010. Significant decreases in facility-acquired prevalence were found in all settings except rehab.

  • Pressure Ulcer Prevalence in Bariatric Patients – Data From the International Pressure Ulcer PrevalenceTM Survey 2009
    VanGilder C, et al. | 2009

    This study of data from the 2009 IPUP survey focused on pressure ulcer prevalence by BMI and weight distribution revealed the following: the percentage of extremely obese patients increased from 18.3% to 20.6% in 2008-2009, 36% of survey patients have a BMI >30, and pressure ulcer prevalence is higher in patients weighing >300 lbs

  • Results of the 2010 International Pressure Ulcer PrevalenceTM Survey
    VanGilder C, et al. | 2010

    This International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence (IPUP) survey of pressure ulcer prevalence revealed that overall prevalence, facility-acquired prevalence, prevalence excluding stage I, and facility-acquired prevalence excluding stage I have decreased significantly during 2009-2010. An estimated 8% to 10% of patients in ICUs developed a facility-acquired pressure ulcer. Facility-acquired pressure ulcer prevalence is highest in pediatric ICUs, burn units, ICU, and CCU, and SICU.

  • Results of the 2008-2009 International Pressure Ulcer PrevalenceTM Survey and a 3-Year, Acute Care, Unit-Specific Analysis
    VanGilder C, et al. | Ostomy Wound Management | 2009

    This observational study evaluated the prevalence of pressure ulcers in acute care facilities. In 2008 and 2009, overall prevalence was 13.5% and 12.3%, respectively. Facility-acquired prevalence was 6% and 5%, respectively. Overall prevalence was highest in long-term acute care, while facility-acquired prevalence was highest in ICUs. Overall and facility-acquired prevalence were lower in 2008-2009 compared to 2006-2007. However, in 2009 approximately 10% of all ulcers were device related. 

  • International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence (IPUP) Survey™

    The International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence (IPUP) Survey™ is conducted annually within a 3-day period to help facilities assess their pressure ulcer prevalence and in turn, identify trends and opportunities for improvement.There is a flexible data collection window – choose the 24  hour period that best fits your needs! 

    Participation is free to facilities and includes a customized, detailed report including prevalence and facility-acquired prevalence benchmarks. Benchmarking your facility’s performance is the first step to achieving a better outcome.

    The link below brings you to the main IPUP website where all current materials are found.

  • Body Mass Index, Weight, and Pressure Ulcer Prevalence: An Analysis of the 2006–2007 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ Surveys
    VanGilder C, et al | Journal of Nursing Care Quality | 2009

    This report analyzed data from the US 2006 and 2007 IPUP surveys and revealed an overall decrease in pressure ulcer prevalence from 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 and a higher pressure ulcer prevalence in patients with low BMI and with both low and high weights; 10% of patients were extremely obese.

  • Overall Results from the 2011 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ Survey
    VanGilder C, et al | 2012

    The 2011 IPUP survey included 104,266 patients, and demonstrated a significant decrease in Overall Prevalence (OP) beginning in 2007 and Facility Acquired Prevalence (FAP) beginning in 2008. However, at present one in ten patients has an ulcer and nearly one in 20 develop one. Acute Care and Rehab had decreased OP and FAP, while LTC remained steady and LTAC OP and FAP increased in 2011. Prevalence by Age increases dramatically after age 60. By stage, severe ulcers as a proportion of all ulcers, have remained constant, and sDTI’s are now 11% of all identified ulcers

  • Comparison of Pressure Ulcer Patients and Outcomes by Care Setting from the 2011 IPUP Survey
    VanGilder C, et al | 2012

    This report from the International Pressure Ulcer PrevalenceTM Survey evaluates US care setting data from (Acute Care, LTC, LTAC, REHAB) and acute care unit types (ICU, Med Surg, Telemetry/Stepdown) for overall and facility acquired prevalence. It also evaluates risk factors such as Braden Score, Fecal and Urinary incontinence, and linen layers by care setting/unit type.

  • Initial Acute Care Field Evaluation Results for the Envella™ Bed System
    2017

    This paper describes the acute care evaluation of the brand new Envella™ Air Fluidized Therapy (AFT) bed system.  It shares Saint Joseph's Hospital's support surface algorithm specific to AFT, and describes some of the patients for whom the bed was appropriately used for using that algorithm in the acute care environment

  • Mary Lanning Healthcare Reduces Overall Pressure Injury Prevalence by 77%
    2017

    This whitepaper describes the impact of quality improvement process changes, including staff training, education, and surface evaluation; as well as incorporating the use of pressure-redistributing  and low air loss mattresses on improving the rates of facility-acquired pressure injuries.  

  • In the Critically Ill Patient, What Is the Effect of Air-Fluidized Therapy in Comparison to the Standard of Care on Preventing the Deterioration of Deep Tissue Injuries?
    Magliato B, et al. | Journal of Wound Ostomy & Continence Nursing | 2014

    This study evaluated the effects of immediately treating a developing hospital acquired deep tissue injury with medical honey dressing and air-fluidized therapy, in addition to routine preventative care. Examining 41 DTIs over the course of 18 months, only 4.4% deteriorated to unstageable full thickness wounds, while 46.3% of DTIs were resolved or only progressed to Stage II. Utilization of this protocol resulted in a net savings of approximatley 3 million dollars related to the 39 DTIs that did not deteriorate. 

  • Pressure Ulcer Prevention in High-Risk Postoperative Cardiovascular Patients
    Jackson M, et al. | Critical Care Nurse | 2011

    Air-fluidized therapy beds were provided for patients who required vasopressors and mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours postoperatively. While on therapy beds, only 1 of 27 patients developed a stage I ulcer versus 40 ulcers developed in 25 patients prior to therapy bed implementation despite already being a high-risk population for the development of pressure ulcers due to severity of illness.

  • Financial and Clinical Outcome Review of Clinitron Use to Treat Stage IV Pressure Ulcer
    Chisholm D, et al. | Remington Report | 2008

    This article describes a patient with a Stage IV pressure ulcer who was started on Clinitron® Rite Hite® Air Fluidized Therapy. A wound healing rate of 67% was achieved within a month of therapy and 99% after 104 days of Clinitron® Rite Hite® air-fluidized therapy. An experienced home healthcare clinician expected that a wound of this nature would take 6 months to heal.

  • A Pilot Study of a New Air Loss Treatment Surface in the Critical Care Setting
    Fimiani J, et al. | 2008

    This observational study of 30 critical care patients evaluated the impact of a pressure redistribution surface with electronic sensors on existing pressure ulcers. During the study, existing pressure ulcers decreased in volume by an average of 41% and in area by an average of 9%.

  • Saint Thomas Health Services (STHS): Clinical Outcomes; People, Process and Technology - Combining the Best of Each to Improve Clinical and Financial Outcomes
    2011

    This study evaluated the effects of a program converting to Hill-Rom® bed systems on the incidence of adverse events. Overall, the incidence of adverse events was reduced by the following percentages: pressure ulcers (19%), VAP (91.9%), and falls (27.7%).

  • Early Results of an Assessment of the Incidence and Treatment of Stage II or III Pressure Ulcers of the Hill-Rom P400 Therapy Surface in Home Care and Extended Care
    2009

    This case study of 3 patients in the home care and extended care settings monitor the healing of existing pressure ulcers and the development of new pressure ulcers in patients on the P400 therapy surface. Positive results for healing were seen in all 3 patients

  • Oak Tree LTAC Case Study
    Bingham A, et al. | 2014

    Oak Tree Hospital, a long-term acute care facility, worked closely with their Hill-Rom ACD to completely revamp their wound care program.  Through staff education, effective and proven equipment and a dedicated CWOCN Oak Tree ultimately maintained their FA prevalence at nearly 0% for 24 months and their wound care program is considered one of the best in their community.

  • Air-Fluidized Therapy in Patient with Suspected Deep Tissue Injury
    Allen L, et al. | Journal of Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing | 2012

    In this case series, 5 patients with 10 sDTI were placed on the Clinitron® Rite Hite® AFT therapy surface within 12 hours of having the sDTI diagnosed and were also treated with standard wound care. Even with optimal treatment, sDTI wounds may rapidly progress to Stage III-IV pressure ulcers. Of the sDTIs identified: 4 healed prior to discharge, 4 evolved into stage II ulcers, and 2 remained classified as sDTI at discharge.

  • Confidence in your Surface Selection Process
    McNichol L | 2015

    In this complimentary, on-demand webinar, internationally recognized WOC nurse and lecturer Laurie McNichol discusses the benefits of using the right support surface at the right time to prevent and treat pressure ulcers. She highlights her discussion with the WOCN Evidence and Consensus-based Support Surface Algorithm and provides attendees with a demonstration of the WOCN algorithm tool.

     

    Next, Hill-Rom Chief Scientist, Charlie Lachenbruch, discusses NPUAP definitions and measurements of surfaces the algorithm reccommends.

     

    Finally, you will be introduced to the Hill-Rom Safe Skin® Program, tools, and support for implementation of a pressure ulcer management program.

     

    At the conclusion of the webinar, participants will be able to demonstrate increased awareness and knowledge of and be able to use the WOCN Society's Evidence and Consensus Based Support Surface Algorithm.