TY - JOUR
T1 - Pressure ulcer incidence in patients wearing nasal-oral versus full-face noninvasive ventilation masks
AU - Schallom, Marilyn
AU - Cracchiolo, Lisa
AU - Falker, Antoinette
AU - Foster, Jennifer
AU - Hager, Jo Ann
AU - Morehouse, Tamara
AU - Watts, Peggy
AU - Weems, Linda
AU - Kollef, Marin
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - Background: Device-related pressure ulcers from noninvasive ventilation masks alter skin integrity and cause patients discomfort. Objective: To examine the incidence, location, and stage of pressure ulcers and patients' comfort with a nasal-oral mask compared with a full-face mask. Methods: A before-after study of a convenience sample of patients with noninvasive ventilation orders in 5 intensive care units was conducted. Two groups of 100 patients each received either the nasal-oral mask or the full-face mask. Skin was assessed before the mask was applied and every 12 hours after that or upon mask removal. Comfort levels were assessed every 12 hours on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (1, most comfortable). Results: A pressure ulcer developed in 20% of patients in the nasal-oral mask group and 2% of patients in the full-face mask group (P < .001). Comfort scores were significantly lower (more comfortable) with the full-face mask (mean [SD], 1.9 [1.1]) than with the nasal-oral mask (mean [SD], 2.7 [1.2], P < .001). Neither mean hours worn nor percentage adherence differed significantly: 28.9 (SD, 27.2) hours and 92% for full-face mask and 25 (SD, 20.7) and 92% for nasal-oral mask. No patients who had a pressure ulcer develop with the nasal-oral mask had a pressure ulcer develop with the full-face mask. Conclusion: The full-face mask resulted in significantly fewer pressure ulcers and was more comfortable for patients. The full-face mask is a reasonable alternative to traditional nasal-oral masks for patients receiving noninvasive ventilation.
AB - Background: Device-related pressure ulcers from noninvasive ventilation masks alter skin integrity and cause patients discomfort. Objective: To examine the incidence, location, and stage of pressure ulcers and patients' comfort with a nasal-oral mask compared with a full-face mask. Methods: A before-after study of a convenience sample of patients with noninvasive ventilation orders in 5 intensive care units was conducted. Two groups of 100 patients each received either the nasal-oral mask or the full-face mask. Skin was assessed before the mask was applied and every 12 hours after that or upon mask removal. Comfort levels were assessed every 12 hours on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (1, most comfortable). Results: A pressure ulcer developed in 20% of patients in the nasal-oral mask group and 2% of patients in the full-face mask group (P < .001). Comfort scores were significantly lower (more comfortable) with the full-face mask (mean [SD], 1.9 [1.1]) than with the nasal-oral mask (mean [SD], 2.7 [1.2], P < .001). Neither mean hours worn nor percentage adherence differed significantly: 28.9 (SD, 27.2) hours and 92% for full-face mask and 25 (SD, 20.7) and 92% for nasal-oral mask. No patients who had a pressure ulcer develop with the nasal-oral mask had a pressure ulcer develop with the full-face mask. Conclusion: The full-face mask resulted in significantly fewer pressure ulcers and was more comfortable for patients. The full-face mask is a reasonable alternative to traditional nasal-oral masks for patients receiving noninvasive ventilation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84936122510&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4037/ajcc2015386
DO - 10.4037/ajcc2015386
M3 - Article
C2 - 26134336
AN - SCOPUS:84936122510
SN - 1062-3264
VL - 24
SP - 349
EP - 356
JO - American Journal of Critical Care
JF - American Journal of Critical Care
IS - 4
ER -