International comparison of pressure ulcer measures in long-term care facilities: Assessing the methodological robustness of 4 approaches to point prevalence measurement

Pressure ulcer indicators are among the most frequently used performance measures in long-term care settings. However, measurement systems vary and there is limited knowledge about the international comparability of different measurement systems. The aim of this analysis was to identify possible avenues for international comparisons of data on pressure ulcer prevalence among residents of long-term care facilities. A descriptive analysis of the four point prevalence measurement systems programs used in 28 countries on three continents was performed. The criteria for the description and analysis were based on the scientific literature on criteria for indicator selection, on issues in international comparisons of data and on specific challenges of pressure ulcer measurements. The four measurement systems use a prevalence measure based on very similar numerator and denominator definitions. All four measurement systems also collect data on patient mobility. They differ in the pressure ulcer classifications used and the requirements for a head-to-toe resident examination. The regional or country representativeness of long-term care facilities also varies among the four measurement systems. Methodological differences among the point prevalence measurement systems are an important barrier to reliable comparisons of pressure ulcer prevalence data. The alignment of the methodologies may be improved by implementing changes to the study protocols, such as aligning the classification of pressure ulcers and requirements for a head-to-toe resident skin assessment. The effort required for each change varies. All these elements need to be considered by any initiative to facilitate international comparison and learning. •Pressure ulcer rates from point prevalence surveys are often used in long-term care.•Four measurement systems spanning 28 countries have been compared.•Currently the comparability of the four measurement systems is limited.•It could be improved by introducing some changes to the study protocols.