Magda Mohamed Bayoumi , Leena Mohamed Khonji , Naseem Saeed Abdulla Ali , Marwan Kamal Altheeb , Nafeesa Abdulla Mohammed , Zohour Ibrahim Rashwan
{"title":"Evidence-based practice enhances patient outcomes: Early pressure ulcer detection with biocapacitance technology among critically ill patients","authors":"Magda Mohamed Bayoumi , Leena Mohamed Khonji , Naseem Saeed Abdulla Ali , Marwan Kamal Altheeb , Nafeesa Abdulla Mohammed , Zohour Ibrahim Rashwan","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.103950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>In pressure ulcers (PUs), significant tissue damage often develops beneath the skin before any visual or tactile symptoms manifest. The breakthrough technology of the SEM Scanner identifies localized micro-edema that forms at tissue depths of several millimeters up to 4 cm. This empowers critical care nurses to implement proactive preventive measures.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To compare the effectiveness of the SEM scanner and Modified Cubbin and Jackson (MCJ) Scale risk assessment tool in predicting PU among immobile patients in Intensive Care Unit (ICU).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A descriptive comparative, longitudinal study was carried out in ICU of Government Hospitals in Bahrain. Two independent raters blindly evaluated risk of PU against MCJ Scale, and a trained critical care nurse used SEM scanner.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>SEM scanner demonstrated a true positive rate of 51.6 % in predicting PU development (Δ ≥ 0.6), significantly higher than the 29.7 % prediction rate of MCJ Scale (<em>p</em> < 0.001(. Furthermore, 28.1 % of patients developed PUs that were not predicted by MCJ (false negatives), compared to only 6.2 % with SEM scanner. The sensitivity of SEM scanner was 89.2 %, compared to 48.6 % of MCJ. The area under the curve was 0.880 for the SEM scanner versus 0.739 for MCJ. SEM scanner identified PU risk earlier than MCJ in 188 readings (35.1 %), with an average of 3.07 ± 2.93 days.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The SEM scanner was effective in detecting PUs three days earlier than MCJ. The SEM canner also reported more true positives of PU and more sensitivity than MCJ scale.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for Clinical Practice</h3><div>Investing in advanced technology by integrating a reliable, evidence-based tool such as the SEM scanner into routine ICU care protocols, along with staff training, is crucial to guide clinical decision-making, reduce the variability in skin assessment, which ultimately reduces the incidence and severity of Hospital-Acquired PUs, and enhance patient outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51322,"journal":{"name":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","volume":"89 ","pages":"Article 103950"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964339725000114","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
In pressure ulcers (PUs), significant tissue damage often develops beneath the skin before any visual or tactile symptoms manifest. The breakthrough technology of the SEM Scanner identifies localized micro-edema that forms at tissue depths of several millimeters up to 4 cm. This empowers critical care nurses to implement proactive preventive measures.
Purpose
To compare the effectiveness of the SEM scanner and Modified Cubbin and Jackson (MCJ) Scale risk assessment tool in predicting PU among immobile patients in Intensive Care Unit (ICU).
Methods
A descriptive comparative, longitudinal study was carried out in ICU of Government Hospitals in Bahrain. Two independent raters blindly evaluated risk of PU against MCJ Scale, and a trained critical care nurse used SEM scanner.
Results
SEM scanner demonstrated a true positive rate of 51.6 % in predicting PU development (Δ ≥ 0.6), significantly higher than the 29.7 % prediction rate of MCJ Scale (p < 0.001(. Furthermore, 28.1 % of patients developed PUs that were not predicted by MCJ (false negatives), compared to only 6.2 % with SEM scanner. The sensitivity of SEM scanner was 89.2 %, compared to 48.6 % of MCJ. The area under the curve was 0.880 for the SEM scanner versus 0.739 for MCJ. SEM scanner identified PU risk earlier than MCJ in 188 readings (35.1 %), with an average of 3.07 ± 2.93 days.
Conclusions
The SEM scanner was effective in detecting PUs three days earlier than MCJ. The SEM canner also reported more true positives of PU and more sensitivity than MCJ scale.
Implications for Clinical Practice
Investing in advanced technology by integrating a reliable, evidence-based tool such as the SEM scanner into routine ICU care protocols, along with staff training, is crucial to guide clinical decision-making, reduce the variability in skin assessment, which ultimately reduces the incidence and severity of Hospital-Acquired PUs, and enhance patient outcomes.
在压疮(PUs)中,在出现任何视觉或触觉症状之前,通常会在皮肤下发生明显的组织损伤。扫描电镜扫描仪的突破性技术可以识别在组织深度几毫米至4厘米处形成的局部微水肿。这使重症监护护士能够实施积极的预防措施。目的比较扫描电镜(SEM)与改良的MCJ量表(Modified Cubbin and Jackson Scale, MCJ)风险评估工具对重症监护病房(ICU)不能活动患者PU的预测效果。方法对巴林政府医院ICU进行描述性、对比性、纵向研究。两名独立评分员盲目评估PU与MCJ量表的风险,一名训练有素的重症监护护士使用扫描电镜扫描仪。结果sem扫描仪预测PU发展的真阳性率为51.6% (Δ≥0.6),显著高于MCJ量表29.7%的预测值(p <;0.001(。此外,28.1%的患者出现了MCJ无法预测的脓腔(假阴性),而扫描电镜扫描仅为6.2%。扫描电镜的灵敏度为89.2%,而MCJ的灵敏度为48.6%。扫描电镜的曲线下面积为0.880,而MCJ的曲线下面积为0.739。扫描电镜(SEM)扫描188次(35.1%)发现PU风险早于MCJ,平均为3.07±2.93天。结论扫描电镜能较MCJ早3天发现脓肿。与MCJ量表相比,SEM扫描器也报告了更多的PU真阳性和更高的灵敏度。对临床实践的影响通过将可靠的、以证据为基础的工具(如扫描电镜扫描仪)整合到常规ICU护理方案中,投资先进技术,以及对员工的培训,对于指导临床决策、减少皮肤评估的可变性、最终降低医院获得性脓肿的发生率和严重程度、提高患者预后至关重要。
期刊介绍:
The aims of Intensive and Critical Care Nursing are to promote excellence of care of critically ill patients by specialist nurses and their professional colleagues; to provide an international and interdisciplinary forum for the publication, dissemination and exchange of research findings, experience and ideas; to develop and enhance the knowledge, skills, attitudes and creative thinking essential to good critical care nursing practice. The journal publishes reviews, updates and feature articles in addition to original papers and significant preliminary communications. Articles may deal with any part of practice including relevant clinical, research, educational, psychological and technological aspects.