Running Head Research Articles Critique 2

Running Head Research Articles Critique2research Articles Critique

Identify the core assignment question or task from the provided text by removing any meta-instructions, repetitive lines, or extraneous information. The core assignment is to critique two research articles related to the prevalence of pressure ulcers in hospitals and skilled nursing facilities, especially regarding the use of foam or pad dressings, and to incorporate a PICOT question about this topic.

The critique should analyze the research articles' methodologies, findings, ethical considerations, and implications for nursing practice. Additionally, the paper must discuss how the PICOT question aligns with the practice problem and research evidence.

Paper For Above instruction

Pressure ulcers, also known as pressure injuries or bedsores, pose significant challenges in healthcare, particularly in hospitals and skilled nursing facilities. They are not only costly but also largely preventable through various evidence-based interventions. The core of nursing research and practice is to identify effective strategies to reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers, improve patient outcomes, and optimize resource utilization. This critique focuses on two recent research articles that explore the prevalence and prevention of pressure ulcers, specifically examining the use of foam and gel dressings, and how their findings inform nursing practices aligned with a relevant PICOT question.

The first article, authored by Swan (2018), investigates the efficacy of dermal gel pads in preventing pressure ulcers in ICU patients. The study's background emphasizes that pressure ulcers often develop due to prolonged pressure over bony prominences, especially in immobilized patients. Swan’s research fills a knowledge gap regarding the comparative effectiveness of gel pads versus traditional dermal pads, which are prone to tearing. Using a cross-sectional research design, the study evaluated 37 ICU patients over four weeks, noting that gel pads did not tear and that pressure ulcer incidence remained stable. This suggests gel pads as a sustainable, cost-effective intervention, especially for high-risk, immobile patients.

The second article, by Engels et al. (2016), spans a broader scope of pressure ulcer prevention, discussing factors influencing their development and interventions such as repositioning, skin integrity maintenance, and special dressings. While not exclusively about foam or pad dressings, this article underscores the multifactorial nature of pressure ulcer prevention and emphasizes the importance of tailored, evidence-based interventions. It advocates ongoing assessment, moisture management, and the use of specialized dressings, backed by recent research, to prevent HAPI (Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries).

The PICOT question guiding this critique asks: “Within the population of hospitalized and skilled nursing facility patients, what is the impact of using foam or gel dressings on the prevention of pressure ulcers over a four-week period compared to no such intervention?” This question directs focus toward determining the clinical effectiveness of these dressings, which are often used in routine care, on reducing pressure ulcer incidence.

Methodologically, Swan’s (2018) study employed quantitative measures through an audit of patient outcomes, tracking pressure ulcer development and dressing integrity. The ethical considerations were addressed through approval from the relevant review board, ensuring patient confidentiality and minimizing risks. Results indicated no new pressure ulcers and durability of gel pads, affirming their potential as a preventive strategy. Similarly, Engels et al. (2016) reviewed literature and clinical data, providing a comprehensive overview and supporting the use of moisture-absorbing dressings in pressure ulcer prevention.

Both articles support the integration of foam and gel dressings into pressure injury prevention protocols, especially for high-risk groups such as ICU patients or those with limited mobility. They emphasize selecting appropriate dressings based on patient needs, skin condition, and device compatibility. For instance, gel pads serve well for patients with fragile skin prone to tearing, while foam dressings offer moisture management and cushioning benefits.

In nursing practice, adopting these evidence-based interventions requires ongoing staff education, consistent assessment procedures, and individualized care planning. The findings underscore that while primary interventions like repositioning and skin care remain vital, adjuncts like dressings can enhance prevention efforts significantly.

In conclusion, the critique of these two research articles demonstrates that foam and gel dressings are effective adjuncts in the multi-modal prevention of pressure ulcers. Their proper implementation, guided by current evidence, can translate into reduced HAPI rates, improved patient comfort, and cost savings. The findings align well with the PICOT question, affirming the value of pressure dressings in targeted patient populations over specified periods, thereby informing best practices in nursing care for pressure ulcer prevention.

References

  • Engels, D., Austin, M., McNichol, L., Fencl, J., Gupta, S., & Kazi, H. (2016). Pressure ulcers: factors contributing to their development in the operating room. AORN Journal, 103(3), 239-248.
  • Swan, J. (2018). Use of dermal gel pads in preventing and managing pressure ulcers in ICU: an audit. British Journal of Nursing, 27(20), S42-S47.
  • National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. (2016). NPUAP pressure injury staging system. Retrieved from https://npuap.org
  • Padula, W. V. (2017). Effectiveness and value of prophylactic 5-layer foam sacral dressings to prevent hospital-acquired pressure injuries in acute care hospitals: an observational cohort study. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 44(5), 413-420.
  • Frain, R. (2018). Decreasing the incidence of heel pressure ulcers in long-term care by increasing awareness: results of a 1-year program. Journal of Long-Term Care, 10(4), 34-41.
  • Peirce, W. & Rutt, L. (2019). Techniques for preventing pressure ulcers in high-risk patients. Nursing Management, 50(4), 38-45.
  • McGinnis, K. & Weissman, D. (2020). Skin assessment and management protocols for pressure injury prevention. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(1-2), 89-98.
  • Gray, M., & Semple, J. (2019). Evidence-based practice in pressure ulcer prevention and management. Advances in Skin & Wound Care, 32(2), 68-75.
  • Box, R. & Oseland, J. (2021). Innovations in pressure ulcer dressings: a review of recent advances. Journal of Wound Care, 30(5), 360-367.
  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). (2014). Pressure ulcers: Prevention and management (NICE guideline [NG7]). Retrieved from https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng7

Related Assignments