Adherence to ‘pressure-relief’ regimen for pressure ulcer (PrU) prevention in spinal cord injury (SCI)

Liu, Liang Q. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6358-1637, Chapman, Sarah, Deegan, Rachel, Allan, Helen T. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9391-0385, Traynor, Michael ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2065-8374 and Gall, Angela (2016) Adherence to ‘pressure-relief’ regimen for pressure ulcer (PrU) prevention in spinal cord injury (SCI). In: The 55th ISCoS Annual Scientific Meeting, 14-16 Sept 2016, Vienna, Austria. . [Conference or Workshop Item]

Abstract

Objectives: 1) To explore whether people with SCI follow advice on ‘pressure-relief’; 2) to evaluate views on performing ‘pressure-relief’ for PrU prevention and identify barriers to following pressure-relief advice in SCI.

Method: Mixed methods pilot study. Wheelchair-users with SCI were recruited. A questionnaire was used to assess concordance to pressure-relief advice, perceived necessity, concerns and barriers to performing pressure-relief and perceptions of PrU. To explore patients’ views in-depth, semi-structured telephone interviews were carried out.

Results: 31 SCI aged 44.7yr±14.4 were surveyed. Average duration of injury was 16.7years±16.2, 58% experienced a PrU, 94% PrU were gluteal/sacral. Although most respondents (84%) performed pressure-relief daily, only 22% performed the amount recommended. Poor concordance to advice is illustrated by adherence score, 25±4.6 (maximum 35). Perceived Necessity score was low (1.7±0.6); Concerns about pressure-relief were high (4.1±0.8) indicating patients typically had concerns about potential negative events of pressure-relief. Practical barriers were also frequently reported (score was 3.5±0.7). Despite this, PrU were viewed as serious threatening as shown by the brief IPQ score of 64±9.3 (maximum 80). Five individuals participated in interviews. Analysis identified 4 themes: lack of knowledge and support, unawareness of impact of PrU soon after SCI, perceptions that pressure-relief is unnecessary, and practical barriers in tetraplegia.

Conclusion: We found poor concordance with pressure-relief advice in SCI. Lack of knowledge, doubts in the necessity of pressure-relief, concerns about the negative effects and practical barriers of performing pressure-relief could contribute. Future early education and tailored interventions are warranted for PrU prevention in this population.

Actions (login required)

View Item

Statistics

DownloadsShow export options

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Activity Overview

6 month trend

0Downloads

6 month trend

612Hits

Additional statistics are available via IRStats2.