Cochrane Database of Systematic Review

Running head: PRESSURE ULCERS 1
Effect of does good skincare compared to the use of pressure reducing cushions mattresses in the
recovery from HAPI- Hospital Acquired Pressure Injuries.
Student’s Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Name of University:
Course Number:
Date of Submission:

PRESSURE ULCERS 1
Introduction section
Skin injury or ulceration due to sheer pressure is an indication of the quality of patient
care. Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPUs)/pressure ulcers are some of the most prevalent
difficulties handled by healthcare centers and experts. Such experiences make it more difficult
for nurses to assure patients of their safety, comfort, and healing. On the other hand, pressure
ulcers increase treatment costs, risk of death and lack of trust in healthcare providers. As a result,
there is increasing interest in the healthcare sector for the most effective intervention HAPU
prevention. The current paper is a literature review of the most recent studies on the most
effective intervention in the prevention of HAPUs. The review compares the research questions,
sample populations, study limitations and recommendations for future studies.
A comparison of research questions
A study conducted by Mallah, Nassar, and Badr (2015 explored the research question to
determine the efficiency of multifaceted interventions in the prevention of pressure sores in the
elderly while Nadukkandiyil et al. (2019) and Da Rosa Silva et al. (2017) aimed at ascertaining
the risk factors, demographics and clinical care in patients that are more vulnerable to pressures
ulcers, whereas Santamaria et al. (2015) were determined to find out the prevention of pressure
ulcers by exploring the effectiveness of silicone foam dressing among critical patients and
Chaboyer et al. (2016) also ascertained the effectiveness of the intervention care bundle.
Similarly, the effectiveness of the use of much pressure relieving mattresses in the control of
pressure ulcers was explored by McInnes et al. (2015). Another study was carried out to
ascertain the existence of any association between dry skin and the risk of developing pressure
sores Lechner et al. (2017). The study explored the risk of developing pressures sores whereas
Lechner and friends examined the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions in the prevention of
pressures sores.

PRESSURE ULCERS 1
A comparison of sample populations
Different researchers have used varying sizes of sample populations for different reasons.
For instance, the study by Mallah et al. (2015) examined 486 patients listed under long term care
to explore the prevalence of HAPU and potential risk factors whereas Nadukkandiyil et al.
(2019) used 90 patients with 50% of them being diagnosed with pressure ulcers to ascertain the
risk factors for developing pressure ulcers. An open randomized control trial used 220 patients
for each cluster, and admitted to an emergency department with severe injuries, whereas a
systematic review by McInnes et al. (2015) examined 59 relevant studies from different
databases such as CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. A relatively similar systematic review
of 25 studies were obtained from the same databases and reviewed (Tayyib, and Coyer et al.,
2016). 3, 837 patients with a mean age of 76.1 were examined in different nursing homes by
Lechner and friends whereas 1600 patients were examined from eight centers in the study by
Chaboyer et al. (2016), and 75 patients aged 60 years and above from three hospitals (Da Rosa
Silva et al., 2017).
A comparison of the limitations of the study
Despite the strengths of the above studies, they should be interpreted in light of their
limitations. The study by Mallah and friends utilized a very small sample size, one facility and
employed random sampling similar to McInnes et al. As a result, there was minimal analysis of
the risk profiles which varied significantly. The study by Nadukkandiyil et al. (2019) was limited
in its use of descriptive design just like that of Santamaria and friends. Additionally, did not
assess other significant factors that influence the prevalence of HAPU, and the researchers were
solely dependent on the notes from nurses. The study design used by Santamaria did not allow
blinding, and the outcomes can only be assessed from the perspective of critically sick patients
and limiting generalization to other populations. The authors could not with certainty attributed