The Pres­sure Ulcers Monitor­ing in Patiens with Neurological Diseases –  Analyse of the National Register of Hospitalized Patients

Authors: A. Pokorná 1;  K. Benešová 2,3;  J. Mužík 2,3;  P. Búřilová 1;  J. Jarkovský 2,3 ;  L. Dušek 2,3
Authors‘ workplace: Katedra ošetřovatelství, LF MU, Brno 1;  Institut biostatistiky a analýz, LF MU, Brno 2;  Ústav zdravotnických informací a statistiky ČR, Praha 3
Published in: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2016; 79/112(Supplementum1): 8-14
Category: Original Paper


The aim of this study was to analyse hospital stays related to pressure ulcers (according to ICD 10) in acute and long-term care facilities in the Czech Republic (2007–2014) in neurologically ill patients with limited mobility.

Material and methods:
Observational cross-sectional study using routinely collected data from the National Register of Hospitalized Patients.

Of total 17,762,854 hospital records 8,150 (0.05%) had the selected neurological diagnosis and pressure ulcers (L89). Detailed analyses were performed in 4,924 records (0.03%): patients with the selected neurological diagnosis and with a pressure ulcer as a primary diagnosis (n = 75); neurological diagnosis as the primary diagnosis and pressure sores as a secondary diagnosis (n = 3,248); a pressure sore as the only primary diagnosis in patients with a selected neurological diagnosis (n = 1,601). Neurological diagnoses included: brain injury and bleeding (n = 2,766); neurodegenerative and oncological diseases (n = 1,707); spinal cord traumatic injury (n = 451).

Duration of hospitalization in patients with pressure ulcers in an acute care setting differs according to the main neurological diagnosis and whether the pressure ulcer was listed as the primary or secondary diagnosis (p < 0.001). Duration of hospital stay differs in an long-term care setting according to the grade of pressure ulcer (p = 0.040). In acute and long-term settings, the age of patients with pressure ulcers is statistically significantly different according to the neurological diagnosis and grade of pressure sore (p < 0.001).

Key words:
epidemiology – pressure ulcer – hospitalization – monitoring – national registries – neurological diseases

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.


1. European Pres­sure Ulcer Advisory Panel and National Pres­sure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Treatment of pres­sure ulcers: Quick Reference Guide. Washington DC: National Pres­sure Ulcer Advisory Panel 2009.

2. Haesler E. National Pres­sure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pres­sure Ulcer Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pres­sure Injury Al­liance. Prevention and Treatment of Pres­sure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline. Cambridge Media: Osborne Park, Western Australia 2014.

3. Langemo DK, Mel­land H, Hanson D, et al. The lived experience of hav­ing a pres­sure ulcer: a qualitative analysis. Adv Skin Wound Care 2000;13(5):225– 35.

4. Stroupe K, Manheim L. Cost of treat­ing pres­sure ulcers for veterans with spinal cord injury. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2011;16(4):62– 73. doi: http:/ / 10.1310/ sci1604-62.

5. Chan BC, Nanwa N, Mittmann N, et al. The average cost of pres­sure ulcer management in a com­munity dwel­l­ing spinal cord injury population. Int Wound J 2013;10(4):431– 40. doi: 10.1111/ j.1742-481X.2012.01002.x.

6. Reddy M. Pres­sure ulcers. BMJ Clin Evid 2015;2011: 1901.

7. Zakrasek EC, Creasey G, Crew JD. Pres­sure ulcers in people with spinal cord injury in develop­ing nations. Spinal Cord 2015;53(1):7– 13. doi: 10.1038/ sc.2014.179.

8. Gun­ningberg L, Hom­mel A, Bååth C, et al. The first national PU prevalence survey in county council and municipality settings in Sweden. J Eval Clin Pract 2013;19(5):862– 7. doi: 10.1111/ j.1365-2753.2012.01865.x.

9. Kottner J, Das­sen T, Lahmann N. Prevalence of deep tis­sue injures in hospitals and nurs­ing homes: two cros­s--sectional studies. Int J Nurs Stud 2010;47(6):665– 70. doi: 10.1016/ j.ijnurstu.2009.11.003.

10. Moore Z, Cowman Z. Pres­sure ulcer prevalence and prevention practices in care of the older person in the Republic of Ireland. J Clin Nurs 2011;21(3– 4):362– 71. doi: 10.1111/ j.1365-2702.2011.03749.x.

11. Vanderwee K, Defloor T, Beeckman D, et al. As­ses­s­ing the adequacy of PU prevention in hospitals: a nationwide prevalence survey. BMJ Qual Saf 2011;20(3):260– 7. doi: 10.1136/ bmjqs.2010.043125.

12. VanDenKerkhof EG, Friedberg E, Har­rison B. Prevalence and risk of pres­sure ulcers in acute care fol­low­ing implementation of practice guidelines: an­nual pres­sure ulcer prevalence census 1994– 2008. J Health Qual 2011;33(5):58– 67. doi: 10.1111/ j.1945-1474.2011.00127.x.

13. Jenkins ML, O‘Neal E. Pres­sure ulcer prevalence and incidence in acute care. Adv Skin Wound Care 2010;23(12):556– 9. doi: 10.1097/ 01.ASW.0000391184.43 845.c1.

14. Coomer NM, McCall NT. Examination of the accuracy of cod­ing hospital-acquired pres­sure ulcer stages. Medicare Medicaid Res Rev 2013;3(4). doi: 10.5600/ m­mr­r.003.04.b03.

15. Rus­so CA, Steiner C, Spector W. Hospitalizations Related to Pres­sure Ulcers. [online]. Available from URL: http:/ / reports/ stat-briefs/ sb64.pdf.

16. Meddings JA, Reichert H, Hofer T, et al. Hospital report cards for hospital-acquired pres­sure ulcers: how good are the grades? Ann Intern Med 2013;159(8):505– 13. doi: 10.7326/ 0003-4819-159-8-201310150-00003.

17. Gun­ningberg L, Donaldson N, Aydin C, et al. Explor­ing variation in pres­sure ulcer prevalence in Sweden and the USA: benchmark­ing in action. J Eval Clin Pract 2012;18(4):904– 10. doi: 10.1111/ j.1365-2753.2011.01702.x.

18. Jiang Q, Li X, Qu X, et al. The incidence, risk factors and characteristics of pres­sure ulcers in hospitalized patients in China. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2014;7(5):2587– 94.

19. Demar­ré L, Verhaeghe S, An­nemans L, et al. The cost of pres­sure ulcer prevention and treatment in hospitals and nurs­ing homes in Flanders: A cost-of-il­lness study. Int J Nurs Stud 2015;52(7):1166– 79. doi: 10.1016/ j.ijnurstu.2015.03.005.

20. Demar­ré L, Van Lancker A, Van Hecke A, et al. The cost of prevention and treatment of pres­sure ulcers: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2015;52(11):1754– 74. doi: 10.1016/ j.ijnurstu.2015.06.006.

21. Eslami V, Saadat S, Habibi Arejan R, et al. Factors as­sociated with the development of pres­sure ulcers after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2012;50(12):899– 903. doi: 10.1038/ sc.2012.75.

22. Ljung AC, Stenius MC, Bjelak S, et al. Surgery for pres­sure ulcers in spinal cord-injured patients fol­low­ing a structured treatment program­me: a 10-year fol­low-up. Int Wound J 2016. doi: 10.1111/ iwj.12609.

23. Clark FA, Jackson JM, Scott MD, et al. Data-based models of how pres­sure ulcers develop in daily-liv­ing contexts of adults with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87(11):1516– 25.

24. Stroupe K, Manheim L, Evans C, et al. Cost of treat­ing pres­sure ulcers for veterans with spinal cord injury. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2011;16(4):62– 73. doi: http:/ / 10.1310/ sci1604-62.

25. Col­lier M. Pres­sure Ulcer Incidence: the Development and Benefits of 10 Year’s-experience with an Electronic Monitor­ing Tool (PUNT) in a UK Hospital Trust. EWMA J 2015;15(2):15– 20.

26. Öien RF. RUT (Register of Ulcer Treatment) –  a win­n­ing concept for both patients and the health care sector. EWMA J 2009; 9:41– 4.

Paediatric neurology Neurosurgery Neurology
Forgotten password

Enter the email address that you registered with. We will send you instructions on how to set a new password.


Don‘t have an account?  Create new account