You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 10, Issue 1
  • Alternating pressure mattresses were more cost effective than alternating pressure overlays for preventing pressure ulcers

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Economics
Alternating pressure mattresses were more cost effective than alternating pressure overlays for preventing pressure ulcers

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebn.10.1.23

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Iglesias C, Nixon J, Cranny G, et al. Pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2006;332:1416–8.OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

    Q What is the relative cost effectiveness of alternating pressure mattresses and alternating pressure overlays for preventing pressure ulcers in hospital patients with limited mobility?

    METHODS

    Embedded ImageDesign:

    randomised controlled trial (RCT).

    Embedded ImageSetting:

    10 hospitals in the UK.

    Embedded ImagePatients:

    1972 patients ⩾55 years of age (mean age 75 y, 64% women) admitted to vascular, orthopaedic, medical, or elderly care wards in the previous 24 hours, with an expected hospital stay of ⩾7 days and limited activity and mobility (Braden scores of 1 or 2) or existing grade 2 pressure ulcer. Elective surgical patients were included if they were expected to have limited mobility for ⩾3 days postoperatively. Exclusion criteria included ⩾ grade 3 pressure ulcer, planned admission to intensive care ward after surgery, sleeping at night in a chair, and weight <45 kg or >140 kg.

    Embedded ImageIntervention:

    alternating pressure overlay (n = 990) or alternating pressure mattress (n = 982) for duration of ward stay or until mobility improved to a Braden score of 3 or …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • For correspondence: Professor N Cullum, University of York, York, UK. nac2{at}york.ac.uk

    • Source of funding: Health Technology Assessment Programme of the UK Department of Health.