Ms Saroeun Ven1,2, Professor Paul Fulbrook1,2, Dr Adam Burston1,2, Dr Josephine Lovegrove3, Dr Sandra Miles2
1The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, Australia, 2Australian Catholic University, Banyo, Australia, 3National Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia
Biography:
Saroeun Ven is an experienced palliative care nurse, research assistant, and PhD candidate with a strong interest in improving pressure injury prevention for palliative care patients. Saroeun currently works with the Nursing Research and Practice Development Centre at The Prince Charles Hospital. In 2021, Saroeun was awarded a First Class Bachelor of Nursing Honours for her research project comparing a standardised pressure injury risk assessment tool versus clinical judgement in an acute hospital setting. Building on her research work and clinical background, Saroeun’s PhD research is exploring pressure injury risk assessment in acute palliative care patients in a hospital setting.
Abstract:
Background: Hospitalised palliative care patients are at risk of pressure injury (PI), which causes physical and psychological distress and increases care costs. Prevention of hospital-acquired PI is a nursing priority, with the first step of prevention being a risk assessment which should be population-specific. In Australia, four phases are used to categorise palliative care; Phases 1-3 apply to ‘acute care’ where patients require medical treatment and/or symptom management, whereas Phase 4 comprises end-of-life (EOL) care. While there are differences in these two cohorts, acute palliative care patients are not clearly defined in current PI prevention research, and the most appropriate method of PI risk assessment for this group is unclear. Therefore, a scoping review was conducted to identify which PI risk assessment tools (if any) have been used for adult acute palliative care patients.
Methods: The search strategy was developed based on the Population-Concept-Context mnemonic. Studies of any design, articles and guidelines which described PI risk assessment in acute palliative care patients were included. Four grey literature and five nursing/health databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE) were searched in March 2023 (limits: year 2002-2023, English language, adults). A protocol was prospectively registered with Open Science Framework.
Results: Fifteen articles were included, with 20 PI risk assessment tools/methods identified. However, none reported use of a PI risk assessment tool designed specifically for acute palliative care patients. Furthermore, the definition of palliative care patients was mostly vague and no articles clearly defined differences between acute patients and those at EOL.
Conclusion: Lack of an acute care palliative specific PI risk assessment tool may result in inadequate PI risk assessment, and subsequently the use of PI preventative interventions. There is a need to develop a new risk assessment tool for these patients incorporating their specific risk factors and treatment needs.