Objective: To compare the effectiveness of two protocols for preventing pressure injuries (PIs) in Chinese hospitals.
Design and setting: A multicenter, open-label, comparative study conducted in seven Chinese acute care hospitals.
Patients and intervention: In total, 1,654 eligible patients were identified, and 1,204 were enrolled in the study. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned into the trial group (4-hour repositioning combined with a viscoelastic foam mattress; n = 602) or the control group (2-hour repositioning combined with a powered air pressure redistribution mattress; n = 602). Participants received their respective protocols until they were discharged, died, or for at least 7 days.
Main outcome measures: The incidence of PIs, Braden Scale scores, and the time to development of PIs.
Main results: Ultimately, 596 trial group patients and 598 control group patients were analyzed. Thirteen patients had single new stage 2 or worse PIs. The total incidence of PIs was 1.1%. The difference between the two groups was significant (0.3% vs 1.8%). However, the difference between the groups' Braden Scale score median during the intervention was not significant (13 vs 13.5).
Conclusions: The 4-hour repositioning interval combined with a viscoelastic foam mattress did not increase PI incidence or risk. These findings could help providers select the right pressure redistribution mattresses and repositioning intervals for critical care patients.