Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

VA Health Systems Research

Go to the VA ORD website
Go to the QUERI website
2015 Conference Logo

2015 HSR&D/QUERI National Conference Abstract

3085 — Implementing the Spinal Cord Injury Pressure Ulcer Monitoring Tool

Guihan M, CINCCH, SCI QUERI; Bates-Jensen BM, UCLA School of Medicine; Hill JN, SCI QUERI; Khan H, SCI QUERI; Thomason SS, HSR&D Center of Innovation on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Tampa; Powell-Cope G, HSR&D Center of Innovation on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Tampa;

Pressure ulcers (PrUs) are a significant source of morbidity, mortality, and diminished quality of life of Veterans with spinal cord injury (SCI) and treatment is expensive ( > $100,000 annually). The SCI Pressure Ulcer Monitoring Tool (SCI-PUMT) is a reliable tool for evaluating PrUs in Veterans with SCI. A multi-faceted strategy (national train-the-trainer conference, toolkit and 12 monthly facilitation calls) was used to implement the SCI-PUMT in VA. One year later, a survey indicated that only about half of 24 VA SCI centers were consistently using the SCI-PUMT. This study evaluated the SCI-PUMT implementation to identify barriers/ facilitators and best practices for a future study to promote its full implementation at all VA SCI Centers.

Mixed methods were used to evaluate SCI-PUMT implementation at high (n = 3), moderate (n = 2), and low (n = 2) adopting SCI centers (n = 7 total). Semi-structured interviews with VA wound care clinicians (n = 49) obtained information on the wound care process and barriers/facilitators to SCI-PUMT use. Interviews were transcribed and coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Completion of SCI-PUMTs used medical record reviews for a random sample (n = 137) of Veterans admitted to the 7 SCI centers for PrUs between January-September, 2013.

Inner setting characteristics were cited as barriers (e.g., time/staffing constraints, training, leadership) as well as facilitators (e.g., presence of an experienced/dedicated interdisciplinary wound care team, strong staff/leadership support). Documentation (inner setting) was reported as a facilitator because it provided a common language and as a barrier because some facilities were documenting PrUs in up to three different places. Chart reviews identified 72 unique Veterans with 206 PrUs (mean = 2.9 ulcers/Veteran); only a quarter had a weekly SCI-PUMT score documented. More severe PrUs (stage III-IV) were twice as likely to be documented than less severe PrUs (Stage II) (mean = 40% vs. 19%, range 15%-66%).

Findings show that intervention and inner setting characteristics (reflecting organizational and unit-level factors) influenced implementation.

Our evaluation identified high and moderate adopting centers as potential targets for increased implementation and improved sustainability. Findings contributed to a growing literature on CFIR domains and constructs.