Clinical Assessment of Medical Device–Related Pressure Injury Risk: Profiling Risk Levels in Patients Using Medical Devices

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of medical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI) development among patients exposed to medical devices and to assess the clinical utility of the Medical Device-Related Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Scale (MDRPIS). Methods: This clinical assessment study included 132 patients receiving care in intensive care, palliative care, and home-care units. The MDRPIS total score ranges from 8 to 27, with scores of 8–12 indicating high risk, 13–21 indicating moderate risk, and 22–27 indicating low risk. The scale was used to assess MDRPI risk associated with life-sustaining medical devices. Its psychometric performance was evaluated through analyses of internal consistency, criterion validity against the Braden Scale, and diagnostic accuracy using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: The MDRPIS demonstrated strong discriminative ability for identifying patients at risk of MDRPI, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.822. A cut-off score of ≤16 was identified as the optimal threshold for detecting high-risk patients. Patients with MDRPIS scores of 16 or lower had a significantly higher incidence of MDRPI than those classified as low risk (p < 0.001). Respiratory support devices, particularly non-invasive ventilation (NIV)/continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) masks and tracheostomy flanges or securement devices, were identified as the most significant risk factors for injury development. The highest incidence of MDRPI was observed among patients in intensive care units, followed by those in palliative care and home-care settings, indicating a statistically significant concentration of device-related risk in high-acuity care environments (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Clinical settings, particularly intensive care and palliative care units, should incorporate the MDRPIS into routine risk assessment protocols to facilitate targeted preventive interventions, including prophylactic dressings and advanced fixation techniques for patients using high-risk devices such as NIV masks and tracheostomy securement systems. The systematic implementation of the MDRPIS may support more effective allocation of nursing resources and enhance patient safety by enabling the early identification and prevention of avoidable device-related pressure injuries. Furthermore, the findings indicate that an MDRPIS score of 16 or below represents a clinically meaningful threshold for initiating preventive interventions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Healthcare
Published
2026-07-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14131942
Primary Topic
Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Clinical Assessment of Medical Device–Related Pressure Injury Risk: Profiling Risk Levels in Patients Using Medical Devices

Gülay İpek Çoban, Handan Aydın Kahraman, Ebru Bozcu Kartal
Healthcare
Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
article

Clinical Assessment of Medical Device–Related Pressure Injury Risk: Profiling Risk Levels in Patients Using Medical Devices

Gülay İpek Çoban, Handan Aydın Kahraman, Ebru Bozcu Kartal
article en

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of medical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI) development among patients exposed to medical devices and to assess the clinical utility of the Medical Device-Related Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Scale (MDRPIS). Methods: This clinical assessment study included 132 patients receiving care in intensive care, palliative care, and home-care units. The MDRPIS total score ranges from 8 to 27, with scores of 8–12 indicating high risk, 13–21 indicating moderate risk, and 22–27 indicating low risk. The scale was used to assess MDRPI risk associated with life-sustaining medical devices. Its psychometric performance was evaluated through analyses of internal consistency, criterion validity against the Braden Scale, and diagnostic accuracy using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: The MDRPIS demonstrated strong discriminative ability for identifying patients at risk of MDRPI, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.822. A cut-off score of ≤16 was identified as the optimal threshold for detecting high-risk patients. Patients with MDRPIS scores of 16 or lower had a significantly higher incidence of MDRPI than those classified as low risk (p < 0.001). Respiratory support devices, particularly non-invasive ventilation (NIV)/continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) masks and tracheostomy flanges or securement devices, were identified as the most significant risk factors for injury development. The highest incidence of MDRPI was observed among patients in intensive care units, followed by those in palliative care and home-care settings, indicating a statistically significant concentration of device-related risk in high-acuity care environments (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Clinical settings, particularly intensive care and palliative care units, should incorporate the MDRPIS into routine risk assessment protocols to facilitate targeted preventive interventions, including prophylactic dressings and advanced fixation techniques for patients using high-risk devices such as NIV masks and tracheostomy securement systems. The systematic implementation of the MDRPIS may support more effective allocation of nursing resources and enhance patient safety by enabling the early identification and prevention of avoidable device-related pressure injuries. Furthermore, the findings indicate that an MDRPIS score of 16 or below represents a clinically meaningful threshold for initiating preventive interventions.

HealthcareVol. 14(13)
Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University (TR), Atatürk University (TR)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.