Vol. 3 No. 1 (2024): at home is better
Articles

Risk assessment of pressure injuries in newborns. Appropriateness of Glamorgan and NSRAS scales: a scoping review

PDF
  • Biagio Nicolosi,
  • Felice Curcio,
  • Maria Aurelia Gheorghe,
  • Prisco Ranieri,
  • Eustachio Parente
Biagio Nicolosi
AOU Meyer IRCCS
Felice Curcio
Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Sassari (UNISS), Sassari, Italy
Maria Aurelia Gheorghe
BSc, NP, Clinical Haematology, Royal Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, England
Prisco Ranieri
RN, Pedriatic Intensive Care Unit, Meyer Children’s Hospital IRCCS, Florence, Italy.
Eustachio Parente
RN, MSc, Department of Health Professions, Meyer Children's Hospital IRCCS, Florence, Italy.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/if-2403

Published 2024-03-31 — Updated on 2024-04-06

Keywords

  • neonates,
  • pressure ulcers,
  • risk assessment,
  • NICU

Copyright (c) 2024 Biagio Nicolosi, Felice Curcio, Maria Aurelia Gheorghe, Prisco Ranieri, Eustachio Parente

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The newborn's skin must undergo a transition process as a result of the passage from an aqueous to an aerobic environment. This process occurs over a period of approximately 2 to 8 weeks. The skin of newborns has important anatomical and physiological differences compared to those of older children and adults. It is thin, with fewer appendages; the stratum corneum is not present; the dermal-epidermal junction is reduced; intercellular junctions are weaker; the secretions of the sebaceous glands are limited and the pH is generally neutral. All these factors make the newborn's skin more fragile to any stimulus. To have effective prevention and intervention procedures, an accurate and practical risk assessment tool should be identified as a preliminary step for adequate prevention. Unfortunately, only few validated tools are available to assess the risk of PUs in children, especially newborns. The objective of the study is to examine the adherence of the most used tools for the assessment of PU risk in newborns, in particular to make a comparison of the limits and advantages of the most frequently used tools in neonatal settings, the Glamorgan scale and NSRAS. To respond to the main objective, a scoping review of the literature was conducted. 54 studies were identified. Further analysis was conducted, which led to the exclusion of articles that did not examine the characteristics of newborn skin, the risk factors related to PUs and the appropriateness of the NSRAS and Glamorgan tools, for a final selection of 35 studies. Patients admitted to NICU represent the paediatric category most exposed to the risk of developing pressure ulcers. Factors such as reduced mobility, together with the pressure exerted by aids or devices, increase the risk of pressure injuries. The risk factors that most expose the newborn to risk are the structure of the skin and medical devices. Nurses should implement preventative measures to control the risk of PU. The use of specific tools is necessary to detect the risk of PUs in newborns and implement preventive measures. PUs risk assessment is one of the nursing care strategies for prevention. Therefore, operators need a valid, reliable, and predictive scale. Lastly, we recommend the use of NSRAS for future research and for the education of healthcare professionals in the neonatal area.

PDF

References

  1. Mancini AJ, Lawley LP. Structure and function of newborn skin, In: Einchenfield LF, Frieden IJ, Esterly N,
  2. eds. Neonatal Dermatology. 2nd ed., Elsevier; 2008,19-32.
  3. Nie AM, Johnson D, Reed RC. Neonatal Skin Structure: Pressure Injury Staging Challenges. Adv Skin Wound
  4. Care. 2022; 35(3):149-154.
  5. Bonté F, Girard D, Archambault JC, Desmoulière A. Skin Changes During Ageing. Subcell Biochem. 2019;
  6. :249-280.
  7. Reed R, Johnson D, Nie AM. Preterm infant skin structure is qualitatively and quantitatively different from
  8. that of term newborns. Pediatr Dev Path. 2021; 24:96-102.
  9. Teng JMC, Marqueling AL, Benjamin LT. Overview of Dermatologic Care in Children. Therapy in pediatric
  10. dermatology. Switzerland, Springer, 2017.
  11. Gleason CA, Juul SE. Newborn Skin Development: Structure and Function. Avery's disease of newborn, X
  12. ed. Elsevier, 2018.
  13. Ligi I, Arnaud F, Jouve E, Tardieu S, Sambuc R, Simeoni U. Iatrogenic events in admitted neonates: A
  14. prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2008; 371, 404–410.
  15. Delmore B, Deppish M, Sylvia C, Luna-Anderson C, Nie AM. Pressure injuries in the pediatric population: a
  16. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel white paper. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2019; 32:394-408.
  17. Dolack M, Huffines B, Stikes R, Hayes P, Logsdon MC. Updated neonatal skin risk assessment scale (NSRAS).
  18. Ky Nurse. 2013; 61(4):6.
  19. Fujii K, Sugama J, Okuwa M, Sanada H, Mizokami Y. Incidence and risk factors of pressure ulcers in seven
  20. neonatal intensive care units in Japan: a multisite prospective cohort study. Int Wound J. 2010; 7:323–328.
  21. Visscher M, Taylor T. Pressure ulcers in the hospitalized neonate: rates and risk factors. Sci Rep. 2014,
  22. :7429.
  23. Baharestani MM, Ratliff CR. Pressure ulcers in neonates and children: an NPUAP white paper. Adv Skin
  24. Wound Care. 2007; 20(4):208-220.
  25. Huffines B, Logsdon MC. The neonatal skin risk assessment scale for predicting skin break-down in
  26. neonates. Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs. 1997. 20:103–14.
  27. García-Molina P, Balaguer-López E, García-Fernández FP, Ferrera-Fernández MLÁ, Blasco JM, Verdú J.
  28. Pressure ulcers' incidence, preventive measures, and risk factors in neonatal intensive care and intermediate
  29. care units. Wiley IWJ. 2018, 15(4):571-579.
  30. McLane KM, Bookout K, McCord S, McCain J, Jefferson LS. The 2003 national pediatric pressure ulcer and
  31. skin breakdown prevalence survey: a multisite study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2004; 31(4):168-78.
  32. Kottner J, Wilborn D, Dassen T. Frequency of pressure ulcers in the pediatric population: A literature review
  33. and new empirical data. Int. Journal Nurse studies. 2010; 47:1330-40.
  34. Triantafyllou C, Chorianopoulou E, Eleni Kourkouni E, et al. Prevalence, incidence, length of stay and cost
  35. of healthcare-acquired pressure ulcers in pediatric populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int.
  36. J Nurs Stud. 2021; 115:103843.
  37. August DL, Edmonds L, Brown DK, Murphy M, Kandasamy Y. Pressure injuries to the skin in a neonatal
  38. unit: fact or fiction. J Neonatal Nurs. 2014, 20(3):129-137.
  39. Lund C. Medical adhesives in the NICU. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev. 2014; 14:160-5.
  40. Kottner J, Hauss A, Schluer AB, Dassen T. Validation and clinical impact of paediatric pressure ulcer risk
  41. assessment scales: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013; 50(6):807-818.
  42. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, et al. Strengthening the Reporting
  43. of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med.
  44. ;147:W163-W194.
  45. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
  46. Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009;6(7): e1000097.
  47. Willock J, Habiballah L, Long D, Palmer K, Anthony D. A comparison of the performance of the Braden Q
  48. and the Glamorgan paediatric pressure ulcer risk assessment scales in general and intensive care paediatric
  49. and neonatal units. Journal of Tissue Viability. 2016, 25, 119-126.
  50. de Lima EL, de Brito MJ, Souza DM, Salome GM, Ferreira LM. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of
  51. the neonatal/ infant Braden Q risk assessment scale. Journal of Tissue Viability. 2016; 25, 57–65.
  52. Anthony, D, Willock J, Baharestani M. A comparison of Braden Q, Garvin and Glamorgan risk assessment
  53. scales in paediatrics. Journal of Tissue Viability. 2010; 19(3), 98–105.
  54. Tume LN, Siner S, Scott E, Lane S. The prognostic ability of early Braden Q Scores in critically ill children.
  55. Nursing in Critical Care. 2014; 19(2), 98–103.
  56. Kottner J, Martina Kenzler M, Wilborn D. Interrater agreement, reliability, and validity of the Glamorgan
  57. Paediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale. Journal of Clinical Nursing – JCN, 2012.
  58. Willock J. Interrater reliability of the Glamorgan Scale: overt and covert data. British Journal of Nursing.
  59. Garcia-Molina P, Balaguer Lopez E, Verdu J, Nolasco A, Garcia Fernandez FP. Cross-cultural adaptation,
  60. reliability, and validity of the Spanish version of the Neonatal Skin Risk Assessment Scale. Wiley IWJ. 2017.
  61. Curcio F, et al. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Neonatal Skin Risk Assessment Scale (NSRAS)
  62. to Italian. Tissue Viability. 2022
  63. Çigdem S, Naime A. The Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Neonatal Skin Risk Assessment
  64. Scale. Wound Care Journal WCJ. 2017; 30:2.