Pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention practices: a cross-sectional comparative survey in Norway and Ireland

Abstract

There were inconsistencies in approach to PU risk assessment and prevention across the two clinical settings. However, prevalence rates differed, mainly relating to category 1 PU damage. Even though formal risk assessment is well established in the Irish site, this is not necessarily followed up with appropriated PU prevention. Thus, the method of risk assessment does not seem to influence subsequent care planning, questioning the role of formal risk assessment; however, despite this, risk assessment does put a focus on an important clinical problem. In the Norwegian site, a lack of risk assessment and appropriate equipment may be a confounding factor worthy of further exploration.