The purpose is to develop a care package for the prevention of medical device-related pressure injuries using the Delphi Method.

The study is a methodological.

The care package was developed using the Delphi Method, a consensus-based technique. Two expert groups were selected to develop the care package to prevent medical device-related pressure injuries. The invitation letter and the questionnaire consisting of two questions were sent to the relevant experts via email and completed in three rounds after receiving responses. The scores from the experts were uploaded to the SPSS 25.0 software package. The range (R) was calculated as R = Q3-Q1. The differences (R) between the quartiles were examined. Items with R < 1.2 were accepted as having reached a consensus.

As a result of the evaluation, it was organized as 83 items. As a result of the analysis of the scores of the second round of the Delphi Method, the range values of each item were examined. In the third round of the Delphi Method, it was found that consensus was reached in the third round on items 18, 29, and 56, on which consensus could not be reached in the second round, and the care package was accepted with 83 items.

An 83-item care package was created to prevent medical device-related pressure injuries in children.

Patients in neurology intensive care units (ICU) are prone to pressure injuries (PU) due to factors such as severe illness, long-term bed rest, and physiological dysfunction. PU not only causes pain and complications to patients, but also increases medical burden, prolongs hospitalization time, and affects the recovery process.

To evaluate and optimize the effectiveness of pressure injury prevention nursing measures in neurology ICU patients.

A retrospective study was conducted, and 60 patients who were admitted to the ICU of the Department of Neurology were selected and divided into an observation group and a control group according to the order of admission, with 30 people in each group. The observation group implemented pressure injury prevention and nursing measures, while the control group adopted routine care.

Comparison between observation and control groups following pressure injury prevention nursing intervention revealed significantly lower incidence rates in the observation group compared to the control group at 48 h (8.3% vs 26.7%), 7 d (16.7% vs 43.3%), and 14 d (20.0% vs 50.0%). This suggests a substantial reduction in pressure injury incidence in the observation group, with the gap widening over time. Additionally, patients in the observation group exhibited quicker recovery, with a shorter average time to get out of bed (48 h vs 72 h) and a shorter average length of stay (12 d vs 15 d) compared to the control group. Furthermore, post-intervention, patients in the observation group reported significantly improved quality of life scores, including higher scores in body satisfaction, feeling and function, and comfort (both psychological and physiological), indicating enhanced overall well-being and comfort following the implementation of pressure injury prevention nursing measures.

Implementing pressure injury preventive care measures for neurology ICU patients will have better results.

To evaluate the predictive validity and reliability of the Waterlow scale in critically adult hospitalised patients.

A multi-centre cohort study.

This study was conducted in 72 intensive care units (ICUs) in 38 tertiary hospitals in Gansu Province, China. All adults admitted to the ICU for greater than or equal to 24 h without pressure injury (PI) on admission were screened by the Waterlow scale on admission, during ICU stay and ICU discharge from April 2021 to February 2023. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine a potential cut-off value for critical adult hospitalised patients. Cut-off values were then determined using Youden's index, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were calculated based on these cut-off values. Test-retest reliability was used to evaluate inter-rater reliability.

A total of 5874 critical patients on admission were included, and 5125 of them were assessed regularly. The area under curve (AUC) was 0.623 (95% CI, 0.574-0.690), with a cut-off score of 19 showing the best balance among sensitivity of 62.7%, specificity of 57.4%, positive predictive value of 2.07% and negative predictive value of 99.08%. The test-retest reliability between the first assessment and the regular assessment was 0.447.

The Waterlow scale shows insufficient predictive validity and reliability in discriminating critical adults at risk of PI development. To further modify the items of the Waterlow scale, exploring specific risk factors for PI in the ICU and clarifying their impact degree was necessary. Risk predictive models or better tools are inevitable in the future.

Patients or family members supported nurses with PI risk assessment, skin examination and other activities during the inquiry.