Revised National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Pressure Injury Staging System: Revised Pressure Injury Staging System

Laura E Edsberg, Joyce M Black, Margaret Goldberg, Laurie McNichol, Lynn Moore, Mary Sieggreen, Laura E Edsberg, Joyce M Black, Margaret Goldberg, Laurie McNichol, Lynn Moore, Mary Sieggreen

Abstract

Our understanding of pressure injury etiology and development has grown in recent years through research, clinical expertise, and global interdisciplinary expert collaboration. Therefore, the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) has revised the definition and stages of pressure injury. The revision was undertaken to incorporate the current understanding of the etiology of pressure injuries, as well as to clarify the anatomical features present or absent in each stage of injury. An NPUAP-appointed Task Force reviewed the literature and created drafts of definitions, which were then reviewed by stakeholders and the public, including clinicians, educators, and researchers around the world. Using a consensus-building methodology, these revised definitions were the focus of a multidisciplinary consensus conference held in April 2016. As a result of stakeholder and public input, along with the consensus conference, important changes were made and incorporated into the new staging definitions. The revised staging system uses the term injury instead of ulcer and denotes stages using Arabic numerals rather than Roman numerals. The revised definition of a pressure injury now describes the injuries as usually occurring over a bony prominence or under a medical or other device. The revised definition of a Stage 2 pressure injury seeks to clarify the difference between moisture-associated skin damage and injury caused by pressure and/or shear. The term suspected has been removed from the Deep Tissue Pressure Injury diagnostic label. Each definition now describes the extent of tissue loss present and the anatomical features that may or may not be present in the stage of injury. These important revisions reflect the methodical and collaborative approach used to examine the available evidence and incorporate current interdisciplinary clinical expertise into better defining the important phenomenon of pressure injury etiology and development.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

BOX 1.
BOX 1.
BOX 2.
BOX 2.
BOX 3.
BOX 3.
BOX 4.
BOX 4.
BOX 5.
BOX 5.
BOX 6.
BOX 6.
BOX 7.
BOX 7.
BOX 8.
BOX 8.
BOX 9.
BOX 9.

References

    1. Shea JD. Pressure sores: classification and management. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975;112:89–100.
    1. International Association of Enterostomal Therapists. Dermal wound: pressure sores. Philosophy of the IAET. J Enterostomal Ther. 1988;15(1):4–17.
    1. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline. Washington, DC: National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel; 2009.
    1. Witkowski JA, Parish LC. Histopathology of the decubitus ulcer. J Am Acad Derm. 1982;6:1014–1021.
    1. Arao H, Obato M, Shimada T, Hagisawa S. Morphological characteristics of the dermal papillae in the development of pressure sores. J Tissue Viability. 1998;8:17–23.
    1. Edsberg LE. Pressure ulcer tissue histology: an appraisal of current knowledge. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2007;53(10):40–49.
    1. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. . Accessed March 15, 2016.
    1. Langley J, Brenner R. What is an injury? Inj Prev. 2004;10(2):69–71.
    1. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline. Osborne Park, Western Australia: Cambridge Media; 2014.
    1. Black JM, Cuddigan JE, Walko MA, Didier LA, Lander MJ, Kelpe MR. Medical device related pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients. Int Wound J. 2010;7(5):358–365.
    1. Mahoney M, Rozenboom B, Doughty D, Smith H. Issues related to accurate classification of buttocks wounds. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2011;38(6):635–642.
    1. Doughty D, Junkin J, Kurz P, et al. Incontinence-associated dermatitis: consensus statements, evidence based guidelines for prevention and treatment, and current challenges. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2012;39(3):303–315.
    1. McNichol L, Lund C, Rosen T, Gray M. Medical adhesives and patient safety: state of the science: consensus statements for the assessment, prevention, and treatment of adhesive-related skin injuries. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2013;40(4):365–380.
    1. Zaratkiewicz S, Whitney JD, Baker MW, Lowe JR. Defining unstageable pressure ulcers as full-thickness wounds: are these wounds being misclassified? J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2015;42(6):583–588. 10.1097/WON.0000000000000175
    1. Huang TT, Tseng CE, Lee TM, Yeh JY, Lai YY. Preventing pressure sores of the nasal ala after nasotracheal tube intubation: from animal model to clinical application. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(3):543–551.
    1. Kuo C, Wootten CT, Tyulor D, Werkhaven J, Huffman K, Goudy S. Prevention of pressure ulcers after pediatric tracheostomy using a Mepilex AG dressing. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(12):3201–3205. 10.1002/lary.24094
    1. Weng M. The effect of protective treatment in reducing pressure ulcers for non-invasive ventilation patients. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2008;24(5):295–299.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться