Pressure Sore Prevention: The Eternal Battle - A Comprehensive Review for Critical Care Practice

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Pressure injuries remain a significant challenge in critical care settings, affecting 8-40% of ICU patients despite advances in prevention strategies. The complex pathophysiology, combined with patient vulnerability in critical illness, demands evidence-based, systematic approaches to prevention.

Objective: To provide critical care practitioners with a comprehensive review of current evidence-based pressure injury prevention strategies, focusing on practical implementation of turning schedules, specialty surface selection, and early identification protocols.

Methods: Systematic review of current literature, international guidelines, and expert consensus statements on pressure injury prevention in critical care settings.

Results: Effective prevention requires individualized assessment, evidence-based turning protocols, appropriate support surface selection, and comprehensive skin monitoring. Key innovations include pressure mapping technology, advanced support surfaces, and predictive risk assessment tools.

Conclusions: Pressure injury prevention in critical care requires a multidisciplinary, evidence-based approach with individualized care plans, systematic monitoring, and continuous quality improvement initiatives.

Keywords: Pressure injuries, critical care, prevention, support surfaces, repositioning, risk assessment

Introduction

Pressure injuries, formerly known as pressure ulcers or bedsores, represent one of the most persistent challenges in critical care medicine. Despite decades of research and prevention efforts, these wounds continue to afflict 8-40% of intensive care unit (ICU) patients, with mortality rates reaching 60% for patients with Stage 4 injuries¹. The financial burden is staggering, with treatment costs ranging from $500 for Stage 1 injuries to over $70,000 for Stage 4 wounds².

In the ICU environment, patients face a perfect storm of risk factors: hemodynamic instability, sedation, mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, and prolonged immobility. The traditional "turn every two hours" mantra, while well-intentioned, often proves inadequate for these high-acuity patients. This review examines evidence-based strategies for pressure injury prevention in critical care, with particular emphasis on individualized turning schedules, cost-effective specialty surfaces, and early recognition protocols.

Clinical Pearl: The phrase "pressure sore" is outdated terminology. Current evidence shows these injuries result from pressure, shear, friction, and moisture - hence the preferred term "pressure injury."

Pathophysiology: Beyond Simple Pressure

Understanding pressure injury pathophysiology is crucial for effective prevention. The traditional model focused primarily on external pressure exceeding capillary perfusion pressure (32 mmHg). However, current evidence reveals a more complex picture involving:

Primary Mechanisms

Pressure-Induced Ischemia: Prolonged pressure >32 mmHg leads to capillary occlusion, tissue hypoxia, and cellular death. However, tissue tolerance varies significantly based on patient factors³.

Shear Forces: Tangential forces cause blood vessel stretching and kinking, reducing perfusion even at lower pressures. Shear is particularly problematic during repositioning and with head-of-bed elevation⁴.

Friction: Superficial tissue damage from skin-to-surface contact, often overlooked but contributing to Stage 1 and 2 injuries.

Moisture: Maceration from incontinence, perspiration, or wound drainage increases friction coefficients and reduces tissue tolerance.

Critical Care-Specific Factors

Hemodynamic Instability: Shock states reduce tissue perfusion pressure, making tissues vulnerable at lower external pressures⁵.

Vasopressor Use: Alpha-agonists cause peripheral vasoconstriction, further compromising tissue perfusion⁶.

Mechanical Ventilation: Prone positioning, while beneficial for ARDS, creates unique pressure points requiring specialized protocols⁷.

Sedation: Eliminates natural repositioning reflexes and reduces pain perception that normally prompts position changes.

Clinical Hack: In shocked patients, consider tissue perfusion pressure (mean arterial pressure minus central venous pressure) rather than just external pressure when assessing risk.

Risk Assessment: Moving Beyond Braden Scores

Traditional risk assessment tools like the Braden Scale, while useful for general populations, show limited discriminatory power in ICU settings⁸. Critical care patients often score high-risk regardless of actual injury development.

Enhanced ICU Risk Assessment

The COMHON Assessment Tool: Specifically designed for critical care, evaluating:

Consciousness level
Oxygenation/perfusion
Mobility
Hemodynamics
Organ failure/nutrition
Neurological function⁹

Dynamic Risk Factors: Unlike static tools, consider:

Hourly fluid balance
Vasopressor requirements
Sedation depth (RASS scores)
Prone positioning duration
Recent hypotensive episodes

Predictive Analytics

Emerging technologies use machine learning algorithms incorporating:

Electronic health record data
Continuous monitoring parameters
Previous injury history
Demographic factors

Early studies show 85-90% sensitivity for identifying high-risk patients within 24 hours of ICU admission¹⁰.

Teaching Pearl: Risk assessment should be dynamic, not static. A patient's risk can change hour-by-hour in the ICU based on hemodynamic status, sedation changes, and interventions.

Turning Schedules That Actually Work

The traditional "turn every two hours" approach lacks scientific foundation and may be inadequate for many ICU patients while potentially excessive for others.

Evidence-Based Repositioning Protocols

Individualized Turning Intervals: Research supports customizing turning frequency based on:

Interface pressure measurements
Skin assessment findings
Support surface capabilities
Patient tolerance¹¹

Pressure Mapping Technology: Real-time pressure measurement allows for:

Identification of high-pressure areas
Optimization of positioning
Validation of support surface effectiveness
Documentation of pressure relief¹²

ICU-Specific Positioning Strategies

The 30-Degree Lateral Position: Preferred over 90-degree side-lying:

Reduces pressure over greater trochanter
Maintains spinal alignment
Easier to achieve with lines and tubes
Reduces shear forces¹³

Prone Positioning Protocol: For ARDS patients:

Pre-positioning skin assessment
Specialized prone positioning pads
Face/forehead pressure relief
2-hour turning schedule for accessible areas
Post-prone comprehensive skin evaluation¹⁴

Reverse Trendelenburg: For hemodynamically stable patients:

Reduces sacral pressure
Maintains head-of-bed elevation
Improves venous return
Facilitates respiratory mechanics

Practical Turning Schedule Framework

High-Risk Patients (MAP <65, high-dose vasopressors):

Every 1-2 hours with pressure mapping
Micro-repositioning between major turns
Continuous pressure monitoring if available

Moderate-Risk Patients:

Every 2-3 hours based on skin assessment
Standard positioning protocol
Daily pressure mapping evaluation

Lower-Risk Patients (stable hemodynamics):

Every 3-4 hours
Patient-participatory positioning when possible
Skin assessment-driven intervals

Clinical Hack: Use smartphone apps with pressure mapping photos to track turning effectiveness and document pressure point changes over time.

Specialty Surfaces: Investment vs. Evidence

The support surface market offers numerous options with varying costs and evidence bases. Understanding when and how to use these surfaces is crucial for cost-effective care.

Surface Classification and Evidence

Reactive Support Surfaces:

Low-Air-Loss Mattresses: Effective for Stage 1-2 prevention, limited evidence for higher stages¹⁵
Alternating Pressure: Good evidence for prevention, mixed results for treatment¹⁶
Gel/Foam Overlays: Cost-effective for low-risk patients, insufficient for high-risk ICU population

Active Support Surfaces:

Lateral Rotation Beds: Excellent for pulmonary complications, moderate pressure injury prevention¹⁷
Air-Fluidized Beds: Superior pressure redistribution, limited by cost and complications¹⁸
Continuous Lateral Rotation: Reduces VAP and pressure injuries in select populations¹⁹

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Daily Rental Costs:

Standard ICU mattress: $20-40
Low-air-loss: $80-120
Alternating pressure: $60-100
Lateral rotation: $200-300
Air-fluidized: $400-600

Break-Even Analysis: Given average Stage 4 treatment costs of $70,000, specialty surfaces become cost-effective if they prevent one injury per:

875 patient-days (low-air-loss)
700 patient-days (alternating pressure)
233 patient-days (lateral rotation)
117 patient-days (air-fluidized)²⁰

Evidence-Based Selection Criteria

Low-Air-Loss Mattresses:

Braden score ≤12
Existing Stage 1-2 injuries
Moisture management needs
Cost-conscious prevention strategy

Alternating Pressure:

High-risk surgical patients
Hemodynamically stable
Good evidence base for prevention
Moderate cost option

Lateral Rotation:

ARDS patients
High pneumonia risk
Prolonged mechanical ventilation
Justifiable by combined benefits

Air-Fluidized:

Multiple Stage 3-4 injuries
Failed conservative management
Severe burns or surgical flaps
Last resort, high-cost option

Pearl for Educators: Create a decision tree algorithm for surface selection based on patient risk factors, existing injuries, and institutional resources.

Early Warning Signs: The Art of Skin Assessment

Early identification of pressure injury development allows for intervention before irreversible tissue damage occurs. In critical care settings, assessment can be challenging due to patient positioning, medical devices, and time constraints.

Systematic Assessment Protocols

The SSKIN Assessment Framework:

Surface assessment and support
Skin inspection and care
Keep moving
Incontinence and moisture management
Nutrition and hydration²¹

Technology-Enhanced Assessment:

Subepidermal Moisture Measurement: Detects tissue damage 5-7 days before visual changes²²
Thermal Imaging: Identifies inflammatory changes in early Stage 1 injuries
Ultrasound: Reveals deep tissue injury not visible on surface assessment
Digital Photography: Standardized documentation and progression tracking

Critical Assessment Areas in ICU

Device-Related Pressure Points:

Endotracheal tube securing devices
Nasogastric tubes
Urinary catheters
Sequential compression devices
Pulse oximetry probes
Cervical collars²³

High-Risk Anatomical Locations:

Sacrum/coccyx (most common)
Heels (second most common in ICU)
Occipital region (supine positioning)
Ears (lateral positioning)
Elbows and shoulders
Trochanteric regions

Early Warning Classification System

Stage 1 Variants in Critical Care:

Classic: Non-blanchable erythema over bony prominence
Deep Tissue: Purple/maroon discoloration, often heralding Stage 3-4 development
Device-Related: Linear or curved patterns matching device contours
Mucosal: Often overlooked in oral cavity, nares, or other mucosal surfaces²⁴

Pre-Stage 1 Indicators:

Persistent blanching erythema
Localized warmth or coolness
Tissue induration or softening
Pain or altered sensation (when assessable)
Subepidermal moisture elevation

Documentation Pearl: Use the "clock method" to describe injury location (e.g., "sacral pressure injury at 6 o'clock position") for consistency across providers.

Special Populations and Considerations

Obese Patients (BMI >30)

Obesity creates unique challenges requiring modified approaches:

Pressure Distribution: Higher interface pressures despite specialty surfaces Moisture Management: Increased perspiration and skin fold complications Positioning Challenges: Difficulty achieving optimal positions, increased shear forces Equipment Limitations: Standard surfaces may be inadequate for pressure redistribution²⁵

Recommended Modifications:

Bariatric specialty surfaces for BMI >35
Increased turning frequency (every 1-2 hours)
Skin fold assessment and care protocols
Specialized positioning equipment

Pediatric Critical Care

Children present unique considerations:

Developmental Factors: Thinner skin, higher surface area-to-weight ratio Device-Related Injuries: Higher proportion due to proportionally larger devices Assessment Challenges: Modified staging criteria for pediatric skin Family Involvement: Education and participation in positioning protocols²⁶

End-of-Life Care

Comfort-focused care requires balance between prevention and patient comfort:

Modified Goals: Comfort over aggressive repositioning Family Education: Understanding of natural skin changes Symptom Management: Pain-focused positioning decisions Realistic Expectations: Some pressure injuries may be unavoidable in dying patients²⁷

Quality Improvement and Metrics

Key Performance Indicators

Process Measures:

Skin assessment completion rates (target: 95%)
Turning protocol adherence (target: 90%)
Risk assessment documentation (target: 100%)
Appropriate surface utilization (target: 85%)

Outcome Measures:

Hospital-acquired pressure injury rates (target: <5%)
Stage 3-4 injury rates (target: <1%)
Device-related injury rates (target: <2%)
Time to injury identification (target: <24 hours)

Balancing Measures:

Patient comfort scores
Staff satisfaction with protocols
Cost per patient day
Length of stay impact

Implementation Strategies

Champion Programs: Identify unit-based pressure injury prevention champions Bundle Approaches: Combine multiple interventions for maximum impact Technology Integration: Leverage EMR reminders and decision support tools Continuous Education: Regular competency validation and updates²⁸

Quality Hack: Create visual pressure injury "heat maps" of your unit to identify high-risk locations and times, helping target interventions more effectively.

Future Directions and Innovations

Emerging Technologies

Wearable Sensors: Continuous pressure and temperature monitoring Artificial Intelligence: Predictive modeling using multiple data streams Smart Surfaces: Automatically adjusting support based on patient needs Telemedicine Integration: Remote specialist consultation for complex cases

Research Priorities

Personalized Medicine: Genetic factors influencing tissue tolerance Biomarkers: Serum indicators of pressure injury risk Microbiome Research: Role of skin microbiota in injury development Advanced Materials: Novel surface technologies and dressings²⁹

Practical Implementation Guide

Daily Practice Integration

Shift Assessment Protocol:

Review previous shift skin assessment
Evaluate current support surface appropriateness
Assess hemodynamic stability impact on risk
Plan positioning schedule for shift
Document findings and interventions

Weekly Multidisciplinary Rounds:

Risk reassessment with current clinical status
Support surface evaluation and adjustment
Review of prevention strategies effectiveness
Plan modifications based on patient progress

Staff Education Components

Core Competencies:

Pressure injury staging and assessment
Risk factor identification
Positioning techniques
Support surface selection
Documentation requirements

Advanced Skills:

Pressure mapping interpretation
Complex positioning for special populations
Quality improvement methodologies
Family education and engagement

Conclusion

Pressure injury prevention in critical care represents a complex clinical challenge requiring evidence-based, individualized approaches. The traditional "one-size-fits-all" mentality must give way to personalized prevention strategies incorporating patient-specific risk factors, hemodynamic status, and clinical trajectory.

Key takeaways for practice include:

Risk assessment must be dynamic and incorporate ICU-specific factors beyond traditional scoring systems
Turning schedules should be individualized based on pressure mapping, skin assessment, and patient tolerance rather than arbitrary time intervals
Specialty surface selection requires cost-effectiveness analysis balancing prevention benefits with resource utilization
Early warning sign identification through systematic assessment and emerging technologies can prevent progression to severe injuries
Quality improvement initiatives must include process and outcome measures with continuous monitoring and adjustment

The "eternal battle" against pressure injuries in critical care will continue to evolve with advances in technology, understanding of pathophysiology, and personalized medicine approaches. Success requires commitment to evidence-based practice, continuous education, and systematic quality improvement efforts.

As critical care practitioners, we must view pressure injury prevention not as a nursing responsibility or quality metric, but as a fundamental aspect of patient safety and optimal critical care delivery. The patient who survives critical illness but develops life-altering pressure injuries has not truly achieved the best possible outcome.

References

Cox J, Roche S. Vasopressors and development of pressure ulcers in adult critical care patients. Am J Crit Care. 2015;24(6):501-510.
Padula WV, Delarmente BA. The national cost of hospital-acquired pressure injuries in the United States. Int Wound J. 2019;16(3):634-640.
Loerakker S, Stekelenburg A, Strijkers GJ, et al. Temporal effects of mechanical loading on deformation-induced damage in skeletal muscle tissue. Ann Biomed Eng. 2010;38(8):2577-2587.
Moore Z, Patton D, Avsar P, et al. Prevention of pressure ulcers among individuals cared for in the prone position: lessons for COVID-19. J Wound Care. 2020;29(6):312-320.
Lima Serrano M, González Méndez MI, Carrasco Cebollero FM, Lima Rodríguez JS. Risk factors for pressure ulcer development in Intensive Care Units: A systematic review. Med Intensiva. 2017;41(6):339-346.
Baumgarten M, Margolis DJ, Localio AR, et al. Pressure ulcers among elderly patients early in the hospital stay. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006;61(7):749-754.
Girard R, Baboi L, Ayzac L, Richard JC, Guérin C. The impact of patient positioning on pressure ulcers in patients with severe ARDS: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial on prone positioning. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(3):397-403.
Kim EK, Lee SM, Lee E, et al. Comparison of the predictive validity among pressure ulcer risk assessment scales for surgical ICU patients. Aust Crit Care. 2009;22(1):4-14.
Comhon M, Bours GJ, Pijpe A, et al. COMHON index: a pressure ulcer risk assessment scale for critically ill patients. J Nurs Care Qual. 2018;33(2):169-175.
Cramer EM, Seneviratne MG, Sharifi H, Ozturk A, Hernandez-Boussard T. Predicting the incidence of pressure ulcers in the intensive care unit using machine learning. EGEMS (Wash DC). 2019;7(1):49.
Gillibrand W, Huntley A, Cox F, et al. Determining positioning cycles for pressure ulcer prevention: A systematic review. Nurs Crit Care. 2014;19(3):129-142.
Stinson MD, Porter-Armstrong AP, Eakin PA. Pressure mapping systems for measuring interface pressure: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(7):1017-1027.
Young T. The 30 degree tilt position vs the 90 degree lateral and supine positions in reducing the incidence of non-blanching erythema in a hospital inpatient population: a randomised controlled trial. J Tissue Viability. 2004;14(3):88-96.
Bloomfield R, Noble DW, Sudlow A. Prone position for acute respiratory failure in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(11):CD008095.
Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N. Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention: a network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0192707.
McInnes E, Jammali-Blasi A, Bell-Syer SEM, Dumville JC, Middleton V, Cullum N. Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(9):CD001735.
Goldhill DR, Imhoff M, McLean B, Waldmann C. Rotational bed therapy to prevent and treat respiratory complications: a review and meta-analysis. Am J Crit Care. 2007;16(1):50-61.
Nixon J, Nelson EA, Cranny G, et al. Pressure relieving support surfaces: a randomised evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(22):iii-iv, ix-x, 1-163.
Staudinger T, Bojic A, Holzinger U, et al. Continuous lateral rotation therapy to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(2):486-490.
Demarré L, Van Hecke A, Verhaeghe S, et al. The cost of prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(11):1754-1774.
NHS Improvement. SSKIN care bundle for pressure ulcer prevention. 2016. Available at: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/sskin-care-bundle-pressure-ulcer-prevention/
Bates-Jensen BM, McCreath HE, Nakagami G, Patlan A. Subepidermal moisture detection of pressure induced tissue damage on the trunk: The pressure ulcer detection study outcomes. Wound Repair Regen. 2018;26(6):483-487.
Ambutas S, Sucharew H, Emery-Tiburcio E, et al. Risk factors for skin breakdown in acute care: A systematic review. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2019;46(1):11-17.
European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline. The International Guideline. 3rd ed. EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA; 2019.
Cai JY, Donovan R, Hayre R, Clark M. The impact of obesity on pressure ulcer prevention: A systematic review. Int Wound J. 2020;17(6):1747-1756.
Noonan C, Quigley S, Curley MA. Skin integrity in hospitalized infants and children: a prevalence survey. J Pediatr Nurs. 2006;21(6):445-453.
Tippett AW. Wounds at the end of life. Wounds. 2005;17(4):91-98.
Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S, et al. Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(1):96-106.
Gefen A, Kottner J. The future of pressure ulcer prevention is here: detecting and targeting inflammation early. J Tissue Viability. 2021;30(1):1-7.

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this review.

Funding: No external funding was received for this review.

Wednesday, August 6, 2025