Heel Pressure Ulcer Research Paper
The article discussed three major ways to prevent heel pressure ulcers using pillows, a repose boot, and a wedge. At the end of the study the device with the most positive feedback and fewest complaints would be used as the heel pressure ulcer prevention device in the acute orthopedic setting at the hospital. Heel pressure ulcers could occur easily due to the bone structure of the heel and patient’s knowledge about how to prevent heel pressure ulcers. The original study was to be implemented only on patients with fractured hips, but the heel pressure ulcer prevention team for this study indicated that heel ulcers could occur in patients with any type of lower extremity surgery. Each pressure heel ulcer prevention device was assigned to a
patient at random. Factors contributing to someones heel pressure ulcer prevention program could be: comorbidities, age, fragile skin, position of their body while lying down, mobilization restrictions, hospital materials and resources, unreliable nursing staff following all procedures with the study, and if the staff would document correctly when someone had a complaint about pain or their device. This study was implemented to find the most cost efficient, time saving and most reliable way of best practice guidelines to prevent heel pressure ulcers in the acute setting. All stakeholders in this study (hospital administrators, professional practice leaders, orthopedic surgeons, and clinical staff providing direct care) were supportive from the being of the study and would collaborate on ideas with each other at staff meetings and lunch-in services. Each stakeholder had an idea on how the study should be implemented, which was taken into consideration when finalizing how the study would be preformed.
There were a total of 72 subjects for this study with 58% of them being female. Out of all the 72 subjects used in this study 27 subjects used a repose boot, 23 used a wedge and 22 used a pillow. The stakeholders chose these three specific ways to prevent heel pressure ulcers based on previous studies on this topic. All three devices were helpful in preventing heel pressure ulcers and could easily be cleaned, but the device with no failures reported was the repose boot. The pillow could bunch up in places which could have left bony prominences unprotected. One subject with a hip fracture reported a device failure on the wedge because it was not up high enough to keep the patient’s hip aligned in traction.
During the one month study none of the 72 patients developed a heel pressure ulcer after having a lower extremity surgery while using a pillow, wedge, or a repose boot. A complaint of all 3 devices was they did not stay in place 100% of the time due to the patients being mobile throughout the study. The heel protection device that was selected to use in the heel pressure ulcer protection program in the orthopedic acute setting at the hospital was the wedge. The stakeholders selected this device to be used because it received the most positive feedback and the least amount of negative feedback: 28 people gave positive feedback and 13 people gave negative feedback.
After reading this article and finding out how the stakeholders were going to choose the best device to use I was a little taken back. I believed this study could have been implemented a little differently in order to get the most accurate feedback. This study had an even number of 72 subjects, which means each category (wedge, pillow, repose boot) could have had the same amount of subjects. Due to an unequal amount of subjects in each category I believe the stakeholders could not determine the most appropriate device to use solely on the amount of positive and negative feedback.
patient at random. Factors contributing to someones heel pressure ulcer prevention program could be: comorbidities, age, fragile skin, position of their body while lying down, mobilization restrictions, hospital materials and resources, unreliable nursing staff following all procedures with the study, and if the staff would document correctly when someone had a complaint about pain or their device. This study was implemented to find the most cost efficient, time saving and most reliable way of best practice guidelines to prevent heel pressure ulcers in the acute setting. All stakeholders in this study (hospital administrators, professional practice leaders, orthopedic surgeons, and clinical staff providing direct care) were supportive from the being of the study and would collaborate on ideas with each other at staff meetings and lunch-in services. Each stakeholder had an idea on how the study should be implemented, which was taken into consideration when finalizing how the study would be preformed.
There were a total of 72 subjects for this study with 58% of them being female. Out of all the 72 subjects used in this study 27 subjects used a repose boot, 23 used a wedge and 22 used a pillow. The stakeholders chose these three specific ways to prevent heel pressure ulcers based on previous studies on this topic. All three devices were helpful in preventing heel pressure ulcers and could easily be cleaned, but the device with no failures reported was the repose boot. The pillow could bunch up in places which could have left bony prominences unprotected. One subject with a hip fracture reported a device failure on the wedge because it was not up high enough to keep the patient’s hip aligned in traction.
During the one month study none of the 72 patients developed a heel pressure ulcer after having a lower extremity surgery while using a pillow, wedge, or a repose boot. A complaint of all 3 devices was they did not stay in place 100% of the time due to the patients being mobile throughout the study. The heel protection device that was selected to use in the heel pressure ulcer protection program in the orthopedic acute setting at the hospital was the wedge. The stakeholders selected this device to be used because it received the most positive feedback and the least amount of negative feedback: 28 people gave positive feedback and 13 people gave negative feedback.
After reading this article and finding out how the stakeholders were going to choose the best device to use I was a little taken back. I believed this study could have been implemented a little differently in order to get the most accurate feedback. This study had an even number of 72 subjects, which means each category (wedge, pillow, repose boot) could have had the same amount of subjects. Due to an unequal amount of subjects in each category I believe the stakeholders could not determine the most appropriate device to use solely on the amount of positive and negative feedback.