Air Mattress - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Air Mattress

The Experts below are selected from a list of 1347 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Air Mattress – Free Register to Access Experts & Abstracts

Dimitri Beeckman – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • An exploration of nursing home residents’ experiences of a non-powered static Air Mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers.
    International wound journal, 2020
    Co-Authors: Brecht Serraes, Ann Van Hecke, Hanne Van Tiggelen, Charlotte Anrys, Sofie Verhaeghe, Dimitri Beeckman

    Abstract:

    Pressure ulcers are injuries to the skin and underlying tissue and are associated with a negative impact on well-being and health-related quality of life. This explorative, qualitative study aimed to explore the true meaning of elderly nursing home residents’ perspectives and critical success factors when implementing a new non-powered static Air Mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers. Individual, loosely structured interviews were conductedin 12 nursing homes in Flanders, the Northern region of Belgium, a convenience sampling of 14 nursing home residents were selected based on the following eligibility criteria: high risk for pressure ulcer and/or with category 1 pressure ulcer, being bedbound and/or chAir-bound, aged >65 years, and use of an alternating Air pressure Mattress previous to the application of the non-powered static Air Mattress overlay. Interviews were conducted in the participants’ personal rooms between June 2017 and March 2018. Interviews included broad, open-ended questions, to invite and encourage participants to openly discuss their perspectives and experiences. Participants were interviewed once during the 14-day observation period between day 3 and day 14. All interviews were audio-recorded and fully transcribed by an experienced transcriber. Interviews were read several times to reveal emerging patterns and were marked with codes into NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis software. During the process, (sub) themes were discussed by the authors until a consensus was reached. Three main themes emerged from the analysis process: rest and sleep; mobility; and discomfort and pain associated with the use of the support surface. Themes were divided into multiple subthemes: motion, noise, sensation, repositioning, and transfer in and out of bed. Through interviews, critical success factors associated with the implementation were identified, including the lack of information and time needed to evaluate the functionality and effects of a new Mattress overlay. Implementation of a non-powered static Air Mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers has a far-reaching impact on nursing home residents’ experiences. This study provides insight into the true meaning of patients’ perspectives by focusing on learning from the patients’ experiences that provide valuable information for healthcare professionals and other stakeholders.

  • A multicentre prospective randomised controlled clinical trial comparing the effectiveness and cost of a static Air Mattress and alternating Air pressure Mattress to prevent pressure ulcers in nursing home residents.
    International journal of nursing studies, 2019
    Co-Authors: Dimitri Beeckman, Brecht Serraes, Ann Van Hecke, Hanne Van Tiggelen, Charlotte Anrys, Sofie Verhaeghe

    Abstract:

    Abstract Background Pressure ulcers are a global issue and substantial concern for healthcare systems. Various types of support surfaces that prevent pressure ulcer are available. Data about the effectiveness and cost of static Air support surfaces and alternating Air pressure Mattresses is lacking. Objectives To compare the effectiveness and cost of static Air support surfaces versus alternating Air pressure support surfaces in a nursing home population at high risk for pressure ulcers. Design Prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled clinical, non-inferiority trial. Setting Twenty-six nursing homes in Flanders, Belgium. Participants A consecutive sample of 308 participants was selected based on the following eligibility criteria: high risk for pressure ulcer and/or with category 1 pressure ulcer, being bedbound and/or chAir bound, aged > 65 years, and use of an alternating Air pressure Mattress. Methods The participants were allocated to the intervention group (n = 154) using static Air support surfaces and the control group (n = 154) using alternating Air pressure support surfaces. The main outcome measures were cumulative incidence and incidence density of the participants developing a new category II–IV pressure ulcer within a 14-day observation period, time to develop a new pressure ulcer, and purchase costs of the support surfaces. Results The intention-to-treat analysis revealed a significantly lower incidence of category II–IV pressure ulcer in the intervention group (n = 8/154, 5.2%) than in the control group (n = 18/154, 11.7%) (p = 0.04). The median time to develop a pressure ulcer was significantly longer in the intervention group (10.5 days, interquartile range [IQR]: 1–14) than in the control group (5.4 days, [IQR]: 1–12; p = 0.05). The probability to remain pressure ulcer free differed significantly between the two study groups (log-rank X² = 4.051, df = 1, p = 0.04). The overall cost of the Mattress was lower in the intervention group than in the control group. Conclusions A static Air Mattress was significantly more effective than an alternating Air pressure Mattress in preventing pressure ulcer in a high-risk nursing home population. Considering multiple lifespans and purchase costs, static Air Mattresses were more cost-effective than alternating Air pressure Mattresses.

  • Prevention of pressure ulcers with a static Air support surface: A systematic review
    International wound journal, 2018
    Co-Authors: Brecht Serraes, Ann Van Hecke, Sofie Verhaeghe, Martin Van Leen, Jos M. G. A. Schols, Dimitri Beeckman

    Abstract:

    The aims of this study were to identify, assess, and summarise available evidence about the effectiveness of static Air Mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. The primary outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcers. Secondary outcomes included costs and patient comfort. This study was a systematic review. Six electronic databases were consulted: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed (Medline), CINAHL (EBSCOhost interface), Science direct, and Web of Science. In addition, a hand search through reviews, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of the included studies was performed to identify additional studies. Potential studies were reviewed and assessed by 2 independent authors based on the title and abstract. Decisions regarding inclusion or exclusion of the studies were based on a consensus between the authors. Studies were included if the following criteria were met: reporting an original study; the outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcer categories I to IV when using a static Air Mattress overlay and/or in comparison with other pressure-redistribution device(s); and studies published in English, French, and Dutch. No limitation was set on study setting, design, and date of publication. The methodological quality assessment was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Tool. Results were reported in a descriptive way to reflect the exploratory nature of the review. The searches included 13 studies: randomised controlled trials (n = 11) and cohort studies (n = 2). The mean pressure ulcer incidence figures found in the different settings were, respectively, 7.8% pressure ulcers of categories II to IV in nursing homes, 9.06% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in intensive care settings, and 12% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in orthopaedic wards. Seven comparative studies reported a lower incidence in the groups of patients on a static Air Mattress overlay. Three studies reported a statistical (P < .1) lower incidence compared with a standard hospital Mattress (10 cm thick, density 35 kg/m3 ), a foam Mattress (15 cm thick), and a viscoelastic foam Mattress (15 cm thick). No significant difference in incidence, purchase costs, and patient comfort was found compared with dynamic Air Mattresses. This review focused on the effectiveness of static Air Mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. There are indications that these Mattress overlays are more effective in preventing pressure ulcers compared with the use of a standard Mattress or a pressure-reducing foam Mattress in nursing homes and intensive care settings. However, interpretation of the evidence should be performed with caution due to the wide variety of methodological and/or reporting quality levels of the included studies.

Sofie Verhaeghe – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • An exploration of nursing home residents’ experiences of a non-powered static Air Mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers.
    International wound journal, 2020
    Co-Authors: Brecht Serraes, Ann Van Hecke, Hanne Van Tiggelen, Charlotte Anrys, Sofie Verhaeghe, Dimitri Beeckman

    Abstract:

    Pressure ulcers are injuries to the skin and underlying tissue and are associated with a negative impact on well-being and health-related quality of life. This explorative, qualitative study aimed to explore the true meaning of elderly nursing home residents’ perspectives and critical success factors when implementing a new non-powered static Air Mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers. Individual, loosely structured interviews were conductedin 12 nursing homes in Flanders, the Northern region of Belgium, a convenience sampling of 14 nursing home residents were selected based on the following eligibility criteria: high risk for pressure ulcer and/or with category 1 pressure ulcer, being bedbound and/or chAir-bound, aged >65 years, and use of an alternating Air pressure Mattress previous to the application of the non-powered static Air Mattress overlay. Interviews were conducted in the participants’ personal rooms between June 2017 and March 2018. Interviews included broad, open-ended questions, to invite and encourage participants to openly discuss their perspectives and experiences. Participants were interviewed once during the 14-day observation period between day 3 and day 14. All interviews were audio-recorded and fully transcribed by an experienced transcriber. Interviews were read several times to reveal emerging patterns and were marked with codes into NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis software. During the process, (sub) themes were discussed by the authors until a consensus was reached. Three main themes emerged from the analysis process: rest and sleep; mobility; and discomfort and pain associated with the use of the support surface. Themes were divided into multiple subthemes: motion, noise, sensation, repositioning, and transfer in and out of bed. Through interviews, critical success factors associated with the implementation were identified, including the lack of information and time needed to evaluate the functionality and effects of a new Mattress overlay. Implementation of a non-powered static Air Mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers has a far-reaching impact on nursing home residents’ experiences. This study provides insight into the true meaning of patients’ perspectives by focusing on learning from the patients’ experiences that provide valuable information for healthcare professionals and other stakeholders.

  • A multicentre prospective randomised controlled clinical trial comparing the effectiveness and cost of a static Air Mattress and alternating Air pressure Mattress to prevent pressure ulcers in nursing home residents.
    International journal of nursing studies, 2019
    Co-Authors: Dimitri Beeckman, Brecht Serraes, Ann Van Hecke, Hanne Van Tiggelen, Charlotte Anrys, Sofie Verhaeghe

    Abstract:

    Abstract Background Pressure ulcers are a global issue and substantial concern for healthcare systems. Various types of support surfaces that prevent pressure ulcer are available. Data about the effectiveness and cost of static Air support surfaces and alternating Air pressure Mattresses is lacking. Objectives To compare the effectiveness and cost of static Air support surfaces versus alternating Air pressure support surfaces in a nursing home population at high risk for pressure ulcers. Design Prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled clinical, non-inferiority trial. Setting Twenty-six nursing homes in Flanders, Belgium. Participants A consecutive sample of 308 participants was selected based on the following eligibility criteria: high risk for pressure ulcer and/or with category 1 pressure ulcer, being bedbound and/or chAir bound, aged > 65 years, and use of an alternating Air pressure Mattress. Methods The participants were allocated to the intervention group (n = 154) using static Air support surfaces and the control group (n = 154) using alternating Air pressure support surfaces. The main outcome measures were cumulative incidence and incidence density of the participants developing a new category II–IV pressure ulcer within a 14-day observation period, time to develop a new pressure ulcer, and purchase costs of the support surfaces. Results The intention-to-treat analysis revealed a significantly lower incidence of category II–IV pressure ulcer in the intervention group (n = 8/154, 5.2%) than in the control group (n = 18/154, 11.7%) (p = 0.04). The median time to develop a pressure ulcer was significantly longer in the intervention group (10.5 days, interquartile range [IQR]: 1–14) than in the control group (5.4 days, [IQR]: 1–12; p = 0.05). The probability to remain pressure ulcer free differed significantly between the two study groups (log-rank X² = 4.051, df = 1, p = 0.04). The overall cost of the Mattress was lower in the intervention group than in the control group. Conclusions A static Air Mattress was significantly more effective than an alternating Air pressure Mattress in preventing pressure ulcer in a high-risk nursing home population. Considering multiple lifespans and purchase costs, static Air Mattresses were more cost-effective than alternating Air pressure Mattresses.

  • Prevention of pressure ulcers with a static Air support surface: A systematic review
    International wound journal, 2018
    Co-Authors: Brecht Serraes, Ann Van Hecke, Sofie Verhaeghe, Martin Van Leen, Jos M. G. A. Schols, Dimitri Beeckman

    Abstract:

    The aims of this study were to identify, assess, and summarise available evidence about the effectiveness of static Air Mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. The primary outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcers. Secondary outcomes included costs and patient comfort. This study was a systematic review. Six electronic databases were consulted: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed (Medline), CINAHL (EBSCOhost interface), Science direct, and Web of Science. In addition, a hand search through reviews, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of the included studies was performed to identify additional studies. Potential studies were reviewed and assessed by 2 independent authors based on the title and abstract. Decisions regarding inclusion or exclusion of the studies were based on a consensus between the authors. Studies were included if the following criteria were met: reporting an original study; the outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcer categories I to IV when using a static Air Mattress overlay and/or in comparison with other pressure-redistribution device(s); and studies published in English, French, and Dutch. No limitation was set on study setting, design, and date of publication. The methodological quality assessment was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Tool. Results were reported in a descriptive way to reflect the exploratory nature of the review. The searches included 13 studies: randomised controlled trials (n = 11) and cohort studies (n = 2). The mean pressure ulcer incidence figures found in the different settings were, respectively, 7.8% pressure ulcers of categories II to IV in nursing homes, 9.06% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in intensive care settings, and 12% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in orthopaedic wards. Seven comparative studies reported a lower incidence in the groups of patients on a static Air Mattress overlay. Three studies reported a statistical (P < .1) lower incidence compared with a standard hospital Mattress (10 cm thick, density 35 kg/m3 ), a foam Mattress (15 cm thick), and a viscoelastic foam Mattress (15 cm thick). No significant difference in incidence, purchase costs, and patient comfort was found compared with dynamic Air Mattresses. This review focused on the effectiveness of static Air Mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. There are indications that these Mattress overlays are more effective in preventing pressure ulcers compared with the use of a standard Mattress or a pressure-reducing foam Mattress in nursing homes and intensive care settings. However, interpretation of the evidence should be performed with caution due to the wide variety of methodological and/or reporting quality levels of the included studies.

Ann Van Hecke – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • An exploration of nursing home residents’ experiences of a non-powered static Air Mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers.
    International wound journal, 2020
    Co-Authors: Brecht Serraes, Ann Van Hecke, Hanne Van Tiggelen, Charlotte Anrys, Sofie Verhaeghe, Dimitri Beeckman

    Abstract:

    Pressure ulcers are injuries to the skin and underlying tissue and are associated with a negative impact on well-being and health-related quality of life. This explorative, qualitative study aimed to explore the true meaning of elderly nursing home residents’ perspectives and critical success factors when implementing a new non-powered static Air Mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers. Individual, loosely structured interviews were conductedin 12 nursing homes in Flanders, the Northern region of Belgium, a convenience sampling of 14 nursing home residents were selected based on the following eligibility criteria: high risk for pressure ulcer and/or with category 1 pressure ulcer, being bedbound and/or chAir-bound, aged >65 years, and use of an alternating Air pressure Mattress previous to the application of the non-powered static Air Mattress overlay. Interviews were conducted in the participants’ personal rooms between June 2017 and March 2018. Interviews included broad, open-ended questions, to invite and encourage participants to openly discuss their perspectives and experiences. Participants were interviewed once during the 14-day observation period between day 3 and day 14. All interviews were audio-recorded and fully transcribed by an experienced transcriber. Interviews were read several times to reveal emerging patterns and were marked with codes into NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis software. During the process, (sub) themes were discussed by the authors until a consensus was reached. Three main themes emerged from the analysis process: rest and sleep; mobility; and discomfort and pain associated with the use of the support surface. Themes were divided into multiple subthemes: motion, noise, sensation, repositioning, and transfer in and out of bed. Through interviews, critical success factors associated with the implementation were identified, including the lack of information and time needed to evaluate the functionality and effects of a new Mattress overlay. Implementation of a non-powered static Air Mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers has a far-reaching impact on nursing home residents’ experiences. This study provides insight into the true meaning of patients’ perspectives by focusing on learning from the patients’ experiences that provide valuable information for healthcare professionals and other stakeholders.

  • A multicentre prospective randomised controlled clinical trial comparing the effectiveness and cost of a static Air Mattress and alternating Air pressure Mattress to prevent pressure ulcers in nursing home residents.
    International journal of nursing studies, 2019
    Co-Authors: Dimitri Beeckman, Brecht Serraes, Ann Van Hecke, Hanne Van Tiggelen, Charlotte Anrys, Sofie Verhaeghe

    Abstract:

    Abstract Background Pressure ulcers are a global issue and substantial concern for healthcare systems. Various types of support surfaces that prevent pressure ulcer are available. Data about the effectiveness and cost of static Air support surfaces and alternating Air pressure Mattresses is lacking. Objectives To compare the effectiveness and cost of static Air support surfaces versus alternating Air pressure support surfaces in a nursing home population at high risk for pressure ulcers. Design Prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled clinical, non-inferiority trial. Setting Twenty-six nursing homes in Flanders, Belgium. Participants A consecutive sample of 308 participants was selected based on the following eligibility criteria: high risk for pressure ulcer and/or with category 1 pressure ulcer, being bedbound and/or chAir bound, aged > 65 years, and use of an alternating Air pressure Mattress. Methods The participants were allocated to the intervention group (n = 154) using static Air support surfaces and the control group (n = 154) using alternating Air pressure support surfaces. The main outcome measures were cumulative incidence and incidence density of the participants developing a new category II–IV pressure ulcer within a 14-day observation period, time to develop a new pressure ulcer, and purchase costs of the support surfaces. Results The intention-to-treat analysis revealed a significantly lower incidence of category II–IV pressure ulcer in the intervention group (n = 8/154, 5.2%) than in the control group (n = 18/154, 11.7%) (p = 0.04). The median time to develop a pressure ulcer was significantly longer in the intervention group (10.5 days, interquartile range [IQR]: 1–14) than in the control group (5.4 days, [IQR]: 1–12; p = 0.05). The probability to remain pressure ulcer free differed significantly between the two study groups (log-rank X² = 4.051, df = 1, p = 0.04). The overall cost of the Mattress was lower in the intervention group than in the control group. Conclusions A static Air Mattress was significantly more effective than an alternating Air pressure Mattress in preventing pressure ulcer in a high-risk nursing home population. Considering multiple lifespans and purchase costs, static Air Mattresses were more cost-effective than alternating Air pressure Mattresses.

  • Prevention of pressure ulcers with a static Air support surface: A systematic review
    International wound journal, 2018
    Co-Authors: Brecht Serraes, Ann Van Hecke, Sofie Verhaeghe, Martin Van Leen, Jos M. G. A. Schols, Dimitri Beeckman

    Abstract:

    The aims of this study were to identify, assess, and summarise available evidence about the effectiveness of static Air Mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. The primary outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcers. Secondary outcomes included costs and patient comfort. This study was a systematic review. Six electronic databases were consulted: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed (Medline), CINAHL (EBSCOhost interface), Science direct, and Web of Science. In addition, a hand search through reviews, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of the included studies was performed to identify additional studies. Potential studies were reviewed and assessed by 2 independent authors based on the title and abstract. Decisions regarding inclusion or exclusion of the studies were based on a consensus between the authors. Studies were included if the following criteria were met: reporting an original study; the outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcer categories I to IV when using a static Air Mattress overlay and/or in comparison with other pressure-redistribution device(s); and studies published in English, French, and Dutch. No limitation was set on study setting, design, and date of publication. The methodological quality assessment was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Tool. Results were reported in a descriptive way to reflect the exploratory nature of the review. The searches included 13 studies: randomised controlled trials (n = 11) and cohort studies (n = 2). The mean pressure ulcer incidence figures found in the different settings were, respectively, 7.8% pressure ulcers of categories II to IV in nursing homes, 9.06% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in intensive care settings, and 12% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in orthopaedic wards. Seven comparative studies reported a lower incidence in the groups of patients on a static Air Mattress overlay. Three studies reported a statistical (P < .1) lower incidence compared with a standard hospital Mattress (10 cm thick, density 35 kg/m3 ), a foam Mattress (15 cm thick), and a viscoelastic foam Mattress (15 cm thick). No significant difference in incidence, purchase costs, and patient comfort was found compared with dynamic Air Mattresses. This review focused on the effectiveness of static Air Mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. There are indications that these Mattress overlays are more effective in preventing pressure ulcers compared with the use of a standard Mattress or a pressure-reducing foam Mattress in nursing homes and intensive care settings. However, interpretation of the evidence should be performed with caution due to the wide variety of methodological and/or reporting quality levels of the included studies.