Purpose: The purpose of this poster is to provide details about the technology of pressure mapping and demonstrate how pressure mapping can aid in the selection of surfaces for a facility or a specific patient type. This will be accomplished by comparing pressure mapping average and peak pressures on common breakdown sites for a subject placed in 3 different positions (supine, fowlers with 45 degrees head elevation and 45 degree lateral recumbent) on various Class I and II surfaces.

Objective: The objective of this poster is to evaluate and reveal the difference in peak pressure, a most critical measure of pressure relative to skin breakdown, experienced while supported on different Class I and II surfaces. The underlying support (ie, bed frame), the subject and the positions used will be consistent. The pressure mapping will assess sacral, trochanteric and heel/ankle pressures on the various surfaces in three different positions (supine, fowlers with 45 degree head elevation and 45 degree lateral recumbent). Specific trade names/manufacturers of the support surfaces will NOT be disclosed.

Outcomes: Pressure mapping of the same subject on the same bed frame in the same position with three Class I and three Class II surfaces revealed different levels of pressure relief despite equal classification by manufacturers of these support surfaces.

Discussion: The need for comparable pressure mapping results to assist clinicians in choosing appropriate support surfaces is vital. Presently, manufactures often display pressure maps for supine position only, if at all. For many patients this is not relevant. Without uniform pressure mapping standards there is no ability to accurately compare surfaces. The ultimate conclusion is to identify the need for adoption of an industry wide standard to provide valid and reliable pressure mapping studies on all support surfaces so that potential effectiveness as well as price can be compared.