Purpose Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score < 19, ICU stay > 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat.

Objectives: To systematically assess the incidence and prevalence of pressure injuries in adult ICU patients and the most frequently occurring pressure injury sites.Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature.Study Selection: Observational studies reporting incidence rates, cumulative incidence, and prevalence of pressure injuries.Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analyses of pooled weighted estimates were calculated using random effect models with 95% CIs reported due to high heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses included studies that used skin inspection to identify a pressure injury, studies at low risk of bias, studies that excluded stage 1 and each stage of pressure injury.Data Synthesis: Twenty-two studies, 10 reporting cumulative incidence of pressure injury irrespective of stage, one reporting incidence rate (198/1,000 hospital-days), and 12 reporting prevalence were included. The 95% CI of cumulative incidence and prevalence were 10.0–25.9% and 16.9–23.8%. In studies that used skin inspection to identify pressure injuries, the 95% CI of cumulative incidence was 9.4–27.5%; all prevalence studies used skin inspection therefore the results were unchanged. In studies assessed as low risk of bias, the 95% CI of cumulative incidence and prevalence were 6.6–36.8% and 12.2–24.5%. Excluding stage 1, the 95% CI of cumulative incidence and prevalence were 0.0–23.8% and 12.4–15.5%. Five studies totalling 406 patients reported usable data on location; 95% CI of frequencies of PIs were as follows: sacrum 26.9–48.0%, buttocks 4.1–46.4%, heel 18.5–38.9%, hips 10.9–15.7%, ears 4.3–19.7%, and shoulders 0.0–40.2%.Conclusions: Although well-designed studies are needed to ensure the scope of the problem of pressure injuries is better understood, it is clear prevention strategies are also required.

Background: Simulation is an integral component of health care education. Research suggests a positive relationship between simulation and learning outcomes. Kirkpatrick's framework is a four-level model based on the premise that learning resulting from training programs can be classified into four levels: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Evaluation of educational impact provides valuable feedback to educators that may assist with development and improvement of teaching methods. Method: This review is based on the PRISMA guidelines for conducting a systematic review. Inclusion criteria included articles (a) written in the English language, (b) published between 2000 and 2016, (c) describing a debriefing intervention after high-fidelity patient simulation, and (d) based in health care. Results: Thirteen studies met criteria for inclusion in the review. Conclusion: Results indicated a paucity of studies at the highest levels of evaluation, indicating an area where future research is needed to assist with the development and improvement of simulation education. [ J Nurs Educ . 2018;57(7):393–398.]