Dear Editor,
Incontinence is a well‐known issue within the older population. Authors have reported consequences for the affected individual such as incontinence‐associated dermatitis1 which is commonly caused by the prolonged exposure of the skin to urine or faecal material2 and therefore mostly located in the sacral or buttock region, where most pressure injuries are also located.3
Both incontinence‐associated dermatitis and pressure injuries are highly prevalent in the older population.4 One recent study collected empirical data on the associations among incontenece, incontinence‐associated dermatitis and pressure injuries in the sacral region.5 However, that study did not place a focus on older hospitalised patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to measure associations among incontenece as well as incontinence‐associated dermatitis with respect to (hospital‐acquired) pressure injuries in the sacral/buttock region in hospitalised patients (≥65 years).
A secondary data analysis was carried out on data collected as part of an annual, multisite, cross‐sectional study, based on the Austrian version of the ‘International Prevalence Measurement of Care Problems’6 including convenience sampling. Written‐informed consent was given by the patients themselves or their legal representatives. The study was approved by the responsible ethical committee.
Data were collected by two trained nurses for each patient. Within this training, for example the German version of the GLOBIAD tool was presented and discussed.7 For this study, we included data from all hospitalised patients who were 65 years or older.8 In addition, the Care Dependency Scale (CDS), which can range from 15 to 75 (lower scores indicate a higher degree of assessed care dependency) was measured.9 We also asked whether the patient was urinary (UI), faecal (FI) or dual (DI) incontnent. A patient that was involuntarily losing urine without experiencing any involuntary loss of faecal material was defined as urinary incontinent. Patients were defined as faecal incontinent when they suffered from any involuntary loss of faecal material but not any involuntary loss of urine. And if a patient lost urine and faecal material, they were identified as experiencing double incontinence. Patients with catheter were included in this study. Focusing on incontinence‐associated dermatitis, the survey question for each participating patient was, if an incontinence‐associated dermatitis7 was found, based on a skin inspection (yes/no). The questions regarding pressure injuries addressed whether the skin inspection revealed a pressure injury, and whether it had developed before or after the patient's admission to the institution (yes/no). Data were collected on various risk factors, for example 20 points or less obtained using the Braden Scale indicated that the patient was at risk of pressure injuries.10
Of 17 788 available hospital patients (≥65 years) at the day of data collection, 63.3% (11 317) took part in the study. Most of the hospitalised patients (≥65 years) were female and 77 years old on average (Table 1). The prevalence of pressure injuries was 4.8%, with 1.7% of all hospital patients (≥65 years) developing a hospital‐acquired pressure injury (Table 2). Patients with an incontinence‐associated dermatitis had a lower risk (OR 0.200; CI 0.087–0.456) of having a pressure injury in the sacral or buttock regions than patients without an incontinence‐associated dermatitis (Table 3). Dual incontinent patients, meanwhile, had a higher risk (OR 1.644; CI 1.044–2.564) and patients with a disease of the skin a twofold higher risk (OR 2.403; CI 1.143–5.052) of suffering from a hospital‐acquired pressure injuries in the sacral or buttock regions than patients (≥65 years) that did not have a dual incontinence or a skin disease (Table 4).
Table 1.
Sample characteristics of hospital patients (≥65 years)†
| Patients (N = 11 317) | |
|---|---|
| Female % (n) | 55.9 (6323) |
| Mean age in years (SD) | 77.1 (7.5) |
| Operation % (n) | 22.2 (2509) |
| Catheter % (n) | 13.0 (1469) |
| Restraints % (n) | 8.2 (925) |
| Risk for malnutrition by MUST % (n) | 18.3 (1447) |
| Medical diagnosis | |
| Mean number of medical diagnoses (SD) | 1.8 (1.2) |
| Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases % (n) | 15.7 (1780) |
| Diabetes mellitus % (n) | 18.3 (2072) |
| Dementia % (n) | 5.2 (583) |
| Spinal cord lesions/paraplegia % (n) | 0.4 (47) |
| Cardio vascular diseases % (n) | 53.7 (6082) |
| Stroke % (n) | 6.7 (758) |
| Diseases of the digestive system % (n) | 22.2 (2517) |
| Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue % (n) | 7.0 (793) |
| Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue % (n) | 29.2 (3307) |
| Diseases of the genitourinary system % (n) | 19.7 (2225) |
| Mean CDS sum score (SD) | 64.2 (15.0) |
†Values presented are n (%) for categorical data and mean (SD) for metric data. CDS, Care Dependency Scale; MUST, Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool; SD, standard deviation.
Table 2.
Descriptive analysis regarding incontinence, incontinence‐associated dermatitis and pressure injuries †
| Patients (≥65 years) | Number of patients | |
|---|---|---|
| Urinary incontinence prevalence incl. catheter % (n) | 18.2 (2054) | 11 269 |
| Faecal incontinence prevalence incl. catheter % (n) | 2.3 (255) | |
| Double incontinence prevalence incl. catheter % (n) | 7.8 (878) | |
| Incontinence prevalence incl. catheter % (n) | 28.3 (3187) | |
|
Incontinence‐associated dermatitis prevalence % (n) |
1.4 (156) | 11 305 |
| Risk patients Braden Scale % (n) | 40.5 (4589) | 11 317 |
| Number of patients with pressure injury % (n) | 4.8 (506) | 11 300 |
| Number of patients with hospital‐acquired pressure injury % (n) | 1.7 (188) |
†Values presented are n (%) for categorical data.
Table 3.
Regression analysis for pressure injuries in the sacral or buttock regions
| Bivariate analysis | Linear regression | Multivariable logistic regression | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P‐value | n | P‐value | P‐value | Exp B (95% CI) | |
| Gender | – | 506 | – | – | – |
| Mean age in years | – | – | – | – | |
| Mean CDS sum score | 0.012 | – | – | – | |
| Operation | – | 506 | – | – | – |
| Restraints | – | 504 | – | – | – |
| Risk for malnutrition by MUST | – | 202 | – | – | – |
| Medical diagnosis | |||||
| Mean number of medical diagnoses | – | 506 | – | – | – |
| Dementia | – | ||||
| Spinal cord lesions/paraplegia | – | – | – | – | |
| Stroke | – | – | |||
| Skin and subcutaneous tissue | – | – | – | – | |
| Musculoskeletal system and connective tissue | – | – | – | – | |
| Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases | – | – | – | – | |
| Cardiovascular diseases | – | – | – | – | |
| Digestive system | – | – | – | – | |
| Genitourinary system | – | – | – | – | |
| Diabetes mellitus | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 1.948 (1.295–2.931) | |
| Urinary incontinence only incl. catheter | – | 499 | – | – | – |
| Faecal incontinence only incl. catheter | – | – | – | – | |
| Double incontinence incl. catheter | – | – | – | – | |
| Incontinence incl. catheter | 0.010 | – | – | – | |
| Catheter | 0.007 | – | – | – | |
| Incontinence-associated dermatitis | 0.000 | 505 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.200 (0.087–0.456) |
CDS, Care Dependency Scale; DI, double incontinence; FI, faecal incontinence; IAD, incontinence‐associated dermatitis; INC, incontinence; MUST, Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool; PI, pressure injury; UI, urinary incontinence. Bold values, statistically significant results P < 0.05.
Table 4.
Regression analysis for hospital‐acquired pressure injuries in the sacral or buttock regions
| Bivariate analysis | Linear regression | Multivariable logistic regression | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P‐value | n | P‐value | P‐value | Exp B (95%CI) | |
| Gender | – | 506 | – | – | – |
| Mean age in years | – | – | – | – | |
| Mean CDS sum score | – | – | – | – | |
| Operation | 0.000 | 506 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.403 (0.245–0.662) |
| Restraints | – | 504 | – | – | – |
| Risk for malnutrition by MUST | – | 202 | – | – | – |
| Medical diagnosis | |||||
| Mean number of medical diagnoses | – | 506 | – | – | – |
| Dementia | |||||
| Spinal cord lesions/paraplegia | – | – | – | – | |
| Stroke | |||||
| Skin and subcutaneous tissue | 0.012 | 0.018 | 0.021 | 2.403 (1.143–5.052) | |
| Musculoskeletal system and connective tissue | – | – | – | – | |
| Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases | – | – | – | – | |
| Cardiovascular diseases | – | – | – | – | |
| Digestive system | – | – | – | – | |
| Genitourinary system | – | – | – | – | |
| Diabetes mellitus | – | – | – | – | |
| Urinary incontinence only incl. catheter | – | 499 | – | – | – |
| Faecal incontinence only incl. catheter | – | – | – | – | |
| Double incontinence incl. catheter | 0.002 | 0.034 | 0.032 | 1.644 (1.044–2.564) | |
| Incontinence incl. catheter | – | – | – | – | |
| Catheter | – | – | – | – | |
| Incontinence associated dermatitis | – | 505 | – | – | – |
CDS, Care Dependency Scale; DI, double incontinence; FI, faecal incontinence; IAD, incontinence‐associated dermatitis; INC, incontinence; MUST, Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool; PI, pressure injury; UI, urinary incontinence. Bold values, statistically significant results P < 0.05.
Our results are in contrast to the findings of other studies that reported an increased likelihood of acquiring pressure injuries when suffering from incontinence‐associated dermatitis.11 One reason for this difference could be that specific treatments for incontinence‐associated dermatitis, such as skin cleansing, re‐recommended in the geriatric population,4 and therefore, these treatments were carried out more often in this high‐risk group. Skin cleansing can lead to more skin inspections in the sacral area including the buttocks, and therefore, the first signs of a pressure injury can be detected much earlier.
One limitation of this analysis was the inclusion of catheterised residents in the data. This might have had masked a possible relationship with pressure injuries. Besides, due to the cross‐sectional design of the study, it is not possible to deduct causal relationships between the variables.
Our results showed that incontinence‐associated dermatitis was associated with a higher risk for pressure injuries in the sacral or buttock regions. On the other side, dual incontinence was associated with a lower risk for hospital‐acquired pressure injury in the sacral or buttock regions. However, as one high‐risk groups are geriatric patients (≥80 years) and one major setting where pressure injuries occur is within nursing homes, a study focus on this setting specifically in the geriatric population is warranted. Additionally, we recommend that older hospitalised patients (≥65 years) with dual incontinence, diabete mellitus or other known dermatological problems need to receive preventive skin care intervention.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- 1. Beeckman D, Van Damme N, Schoonhoven L et al Interventions for preventing and treating incontinence‐associated dermatitis in adults. Cochrane Database of Syst. Rev. 2016; 11: CD011627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Beeckman D, Woodward S, Rajpaul K et al Clinical challenges of preventing incontinence‐associated dermatitis. Br. J. Nurs. 2011; 20: 784–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Gray M. Optimal management of incontinence‐associated dermatitis in the elderly. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2010; 11: 201–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Kottner J, Beeckman D. Incontinence‐associated dermatitis and pressure ulcers in geriatric patients. G. Ital. Dermatol. Venereol. 2015; 150: 717–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Gray M, Giuliano KK. Incontinence‐associated dermatitis, characteristics and relationship to pressure injury: a multisite epidemiologic analysis. J. Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2018; 45: 63–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. van Nie‐Visser NC, Schols JM, Meesterberends E et al An international prevalence measurement of care problems: study protocol. J. Adv. Nurs. 2013; 69: e18–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Beeckman D, Van den Bussche K, Alves P et al Towards an international language for Incontinence‐Associated Dermatitis (IAD): design and evaluation of psychometric properties of the Ghent Global IAD Categorisation Tool (GLOBIAD) in 30 countries. Br. J. Dermatol. 2018; 178: e446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. WHO . Ageing and health. 2018. Available from URL: http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health. (Accessed 15 October 2018).
- 9. Lohrmann C, Dijkstra A, Dassen T. The Care Dependency Scale: an assessment instrument for elderly patients in German hospitals. Geriatr. Nurs. 2003; 24: 40–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Bergstrom N, Braden BJ, Laguzza A et al The Braden scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Nurs. Res. 1987; 36: 205–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. VanGilder C, Lachenbruch C, Algrim‐Boyle C et al The International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence™ Survey: 2006–2015A 10‐year pressure injury prevalence and demographic trend analysis by care setting. J. Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2017; 44: 20–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]