The Effectiveness of Continuous Bedside Pressure Mapping for Pressure Injury Prevention: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.
Yanling Tao, Tianqiong Wang, Quan Yang et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This mixed-methods systematic review examined continuous bedside pressure mapping for pressure injury prevention in adults in hospital and long-term care, including effects on staff and family members. Eighteen studies were included. Observational cohorts suggested lower pressure injury incidence in selected high-risk settings, whereas randomized trials found no significant overall preventive effect. An exploratory meta-analysis of interface pressure suggested a borderline reduction, but results were highly heterogeneous and not robust to sensitivity analysis. The review also identified improvements in repositioning timeliness, staff knowledge, patient awareness and acceptability, alongside implementation barriers.
Key findings
- Eighteen studies were included; randomized trials showed no significant overall preventive effect on pressure injuries.
- Observational cohorts suggested lower pressure injury incidence in selected high-risk settings.
- Exploratory interface pressure meta-analysis indicated a borderline reduction, with substantial heterogeneity and sensitivity-analysis results that were not robust.
- Reported process benefits included more timely repositioning, improved staff knowledge, greater patient awareness and acceptability.
Why it matters
Pressure mapping may help teams identify and respond to pressure-related risk, but evidence for reducing pressure injuries is not consistent across study designs. Its potential value may depend on how it is integrated into care processes, including staff training and agreed repositioning protocols. Cost, technical concerns and workflow disruption also matter when assessing whether implementation is feasible.
What to keep in mind
Clinical effectiveness evidence was limited and context-dependent; the exploratory interface pressure analysis had substantial heterogeneity and was not robust to sensitivity analysis. Economic evidence was limited.