The quality and clinical applicability of recommendations in pressure injury guidelines: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines
Introduction
Pressure injuries, also known as pressure ulcers, are an area of localised damage to the skin and/or underlying tissue due to pressure or forces of the patient's body weight combined with shear. (European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel 2019) Hospital-acquired pressure injuries are a common cause of avoidable harm in patients. (Wounds International 2010, Kim et al., 2019, Li et al., 2020, Nguyen et al., 2015) Pressure injuries have the potential to adversely affect patients’ quality of life, causing pain and emotional distress, isolation, and, for some patients, increased risk of mortality. (Gorecki et al., 2009, Hopkins et al., 2006, Latimer et al., 2014) As well as the high personal cost for patients, pressure injuries pose a significant financial burden on healthcare systems in terms of extended hospital stays, increased nursing workloads, and diagnostic, monitoring and treatment costs. (Anand et al., 2019, Padula and Delarmente, 2019, Demarre et al., 2015) Across Australia, the economic cost of pressure injury treatment in 2012-13 was approximately A$983 million, or 1.9% of the public hospital funding for that period. (Nguyen et al., 2015) Results from Padula and Delarmente (2019) cost-effectiveness analysis modelling suggest that pressure injuries cost US $26.8 billion dollars while Demarre et al. (2015) systematic review found that daily costs of pressure injury prevention varied but could be as high as 87.57€, with costs associated with treatment being as high as 470.49€. Despite hospital-wide initiatives to prevent and eradicate hospital acquired pressure injury, clinical practice gaps and inconsistencies in clinical practice persist. (Chaboyer et al., 2017) (Jackson et al., 2016)
Clinical practice guidelines are statements and patient care recommendations based on systematic reviews of the evidence including a benefits and harms assessment of other care options. Institute of Medicine (2011) These recommendations, based on scientific knowledge (current at their time of publication), are used to standardise care and guide health professionals decision making in the management of medical conditions. Institute of Medicine (2011) Pressure injury clinical practice guidelines recommend various interventions for the prevention and treatment of pressure injuries. These include risk assessment tools, pressure relieving devices such as specialised air mattresses, wedges, booties, and chair cushions, appropriate skin care, adequate nutrition, and patient education. (Chaboyer et al., 2017) Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of strategies form the basis of clinical practice guidelines’ best-practice recommendations. Although implementation of clinical practice guidelines’ recommendations can reduce preventable harm of hospital acquired pressure injuries, (Nguyen et al., 2015) (Walker, Miles et al., 2013, Padula et al., 2016) differences in the methodology of clinical practice guidelines’ development and data collection and analysis influences both the quality and strength of the recommendations provided. However, to our knowledge, a contemporary, comprehensive and rigorous quality appraisal of pressure injury clinical practice guidelines has not been undertaken. Therefore the purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the quality of pressure injury clinical practice guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool (Brouwers et al., 2010) and the The Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation—Recommendation EXcellence (AGREE-REX) tool. (AGREE-REX Research Team 2019) The AGREE II tool is a methodological resource used to inform guideline development, reporting and quality assessment. (Brouwers et al., 2010) However, while meeting rigorous methodological criteria is essential, this does not necessarily mean that guideline recommendations are trustworthy, credible and feasible to implement. AGREE-REX Research Team (2019) Essentially, the validated AGREE REX tool was developed to assess trustworthiness, credibility and feasibility. AGREE-REX Research Team (2019)
The objective of the systematic review was to critically appraise the quality of the guideline and clinical applicability of the recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of pressure injuries. The review questions are:
- 1.
Using the AGREE II tool, what is the quality of clinical practice guidelines published from 2005 to 2020 for pressure injury prevention and treatment?
- 2.
Using the AGREE-REX tool, to what extent are recommendations trustworthy, applicable and feasible to implement across particular contexts?
The results of this review may assist point of care clinicians’ guideline selection to aid clinical decision making and promote practice that is based on the best available evidence. For guideline developers, these results may ultimately drive future improvements in the quality and applicability of guidelines.
Section snippets
Design
We conducted a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement, and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions AGREE-REX Research Team (2020) recommendations. We identified research questions a priori and registered the review protocol with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO registration number: masked for blinded peer review).
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
The eligibility of documents was
Identification and selection of clinical practice guidelines
Electronic library databases and repository searches yielded 4711 documents and 1466 duplicates were removed (see PRISMA flowchart, Fig. 1). We conducted full text screening on 73 documents and excluded 61 (excluded cases listed in supplementary file 2). In all, 12 complete clinical practice guidelines (European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel 2019) (Beeckman et al., 2012-Wound Ostomy Continence Nurses Society 2016) were included in the final analysis. In addition to the 12 guidelines, we
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of pressure injury prevention and treatment clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE II and the new AGREE-REX instrument. We acknowledge an earlier review undertaken in 200736 that included four clinical practice guidelines in the prevention and treatment of pressure injuries. Notably, since the publication of that review, guideline methodology including updating of the AGREE instrument has advanced, culminating in increased use of
Conclusions
The findings of this review suggest there is some disparity in the quality of the included guidelines. However, four high quality clinical practice guidelines are available and could be implemented in daily practice albeit they may need to be adapted to local policies. Notwithstanding, the levels of evidence upon which many of the recommendations in these guidelines are founded remains low. As such, there is a compelling need to generate rigorous, trial-based evidence in key areas of pressure
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare they have no known competing financial interests or personal or professional relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. To avoid potential conflict, any author involved in the development of an included guideline was excluded during the assessment phases of such guideline.
Funding source
This study was partly funded by the School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University.
Ethics statement
The study is a systematic review of published material, therefore ethics approval was not required.
References (48)
- et al.
The cost of prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: a systematic review
Int. J. Nurs. Stud.
(2015) - et al.
Global prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries in hospitalised adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Int. J. Nurs. Stud.
(2020) - et al.
When does a good practice statement not justify an evidence based guideline?
J. Clin. Epidemiol.
(2015) The AGREE II Instrument [Electronic version]
(2013)- AGREE-REX Research Team. The Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation-Recommendation EXcellence (AGREE-REX)...
- et al.
GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction
BMJ
(2016) - et al.
Estimating the hospital costs of inpatient harms
Health Serv. Res.
(2019) - et al.
Impact of patient involvement on clinical practice guideline development: a parallel group study
Implement. Sci.
(2018) - et al.
A national guideline for the prevention of pressure ulcers. KCE Report 193S. Good Clinical Practice
(2012) - et al.
A national guideline for the treatment of pressure ulcers - Synthesis KCE Report 203CS
(2013)
AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare
Can. Med. Assoc. J.
Development of the AGREE II, part 1: Performance, usefulness and areas for improvement
Can. Med. Assoc. J.
Adherence to evidence-based pressure injury prevention guidelines in routine clinical practice: a longitudinal study
Int. Wound J.
Treatment of pressure ulcers [Letter to the editor]
Ann. Intern. Med.
Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers/injuries: clinical practice guideline
Assessment of the quality of recommendations from 161 clinical practice guidelines using the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation-recommendations excellence (AGREE-REX) instrument shows there is room for improvement
Implement. Sci.
Do guidelines offer implementation advice to target users? A systematic review of guideline applicability
BMJ Open
Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: a systematic review
PLoS One
Guidelines for guideline developers: a systematic review of grading systems for medical tests
Implement. Sci.
Impact of pressure ulcers on quality of life in older patients: a systematic review
J. Am. Geriatr. Soc.
Wound healing society 2015 update on guidelines for pressure ulcers
Wound Repair Regen.
The 2014 international pressure ulcer guideline: methods and development
J. Adv. Nurs.
International consumer engagement in pressure injury/ulcer guideline development: global survey of patient care goals and information needs [Poster]
Cited by (19)
Risk factors predicting hospital-acquired pressure injury in adult patients: An overview of reviews
2024, International Journal of Nursing StudiesCritical Appraisal of the Colombian Clinical Practice Guide for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Suicidal Ideation and/or Behaviour (Adoption)
2024, Revista Colombiana de PsiquiatriaPrevalence and incidence of pressure injuries among older people living in nursing homes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2023, International Journal of Nursing StudiesCroatian nurses' and nursing students’ attitudes towards pressure ulcer/injury prevention
2023, Journal of Tissue ViabilityThe Grading of Recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation approach was rarely followed and inconsistently applied in pressure injury prevention guidelines development: A cross-sectional survey
2022, Journal of Tissue ViabilityCitation Excerpt :Since then, many professional organizations, such as the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP), European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP), the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society (WOCN), the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO) and governmental agencies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), have developed clinical practice guidelines for pressure injury prevention [6–10]. However, some disparities in the methodological quality of these guidelines were reported in a previous study [11]. One criticism is that the current state of CPG development lacks transparency in deriving and rating the strength of recommendations, which may lead to bias in recommendations [4].
Croatian nurses' and nursing students' knowledge about pressure injury prevention
2022, Journal of Tissue ViabilityCitation Excerpt :Numerous factors contribute to the occurrence of PI including advanced age, immobility, incontinence, loss of consciousness, hemodynamic instability, ventilator status, surgical procedures, and diagnoses of diabetes, renal or heart disease, anemia, and edema [8–11]. PIs significantly reduce patient quality of life [12], cause pain, and prolong hospitalization [2,3,10,13–15], and risk mortality is higher in patients with a higher stage of PI [6]. The approach to PI prevention is multidisciplinary, and nurses play an important role [5,16,17].