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.

Item Type: Conference or Workshop Item (Poster)
Research Areas: A. > School of Health and Education > Adult, Child and Midwifery
Item ID: 20202
Useful Links:
Depositing User: Liang Liu
Date Deposited: 18 Jul 2016 10:31
Last Modified: 14 Sep 2017 11:33
URI: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/id/eprint/20202

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item