Difficulty in Identifying Factors Responsible for Pressure Ulcer Healing in Veterans With Spinal Cord Injury.

Guihan M, Sohn MW, Bauman WA, Spungen AM, Powell-Cope GM, Thomason SS, Collins JF, Bates-Jensen BM. Difficulty in Identifying Factors Responsible for Pressure Ulcer Healing in Veterans With Spinal Cord Injury. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2016 Dec 1; 97(12):2085-2094.e1.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CCN 06-164 – Blast-Related Health Problem Identification and Polytrauma Taxonomy

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics associated with pressure ulcer (PrU) healing for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a large clinical trial's data for healing PrUs in individuals with SCI; prospective Delphi process was conducted with SCI and/or PrU experts. SETTING: Spinal cord injury centers. PARTICIPANTS: There were 629 screening and 162 treatment participants (N = 791); 185 SCI clinicians/national PrU/wound care experts participated in the Delphi process. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: PrU healing of 50% and 100% at weeks 4 and 12. RESULTS: Poisson regression models using the top Delphi-recommended factors found that only ulcer stage consistently predicted 50% and 100% healing at weeks 4 and 12. Additionally, ischial/perineal location was associated with 33% higher likelihood of 50% healing at week 4. Patient noncompliance with treatment recommendations, the top-ranked Delphi factor, did not predict healing at week 4 or 12. Expanded models found that at week 4, baseline PrU size, PrU stage IV, PrU pain, and American Spinal Injury Association grade A significantly predicted 100% healing, while at week 12, only PrU stage (IV) significantly predicted 100% healing. Significant predictors of 50% healing at week 4 included baseline PrU size, stage, ischial/perianal location body mass index > 30kg/m(2), foul odor, and signs of infection. At week 12, PrU duration, paraplegia predicted 50% healing. SCI center identifiers consistently showed 2- to 5-fold variation in predicting 50% PrU healing at weeks 4 and 12. CONCLUSIONS: Delphi panel-recommended factors (eg, patient compliance) did not predict PrU healing. Reducing center-level variability in wound healing by learning from best practices should be a health system goal. PrU healing in SCI is still poorly understood, and future studies should focus on as yet unidentified or underappreciated factors.