Now accepting Oct–Nov in-service requests. Request an in-service →

Clinical Insights · Guidelines

The International Pressure Injury Guideline in 2026Practical Lessons for Canadian Care

Support surfaces, repositioning and 24-hour positioning — what the current fourth-edition chapters ask clinicians to do.

For Canadian LTC Directors of Care, wound clinicians, OTs and dealer partners

Educational summary · Last reviewed October 25, 2026

Explore the five lessons↓

Clinicians attending a clinical education session

Last reviewed: October 25, 2026

In this article
  1. 01Person & surface
  2. 02When to reassess
  3. 03AP & low air loss
  4. 04Repositioning
  5. 0524-hour positioning
  6. References

A resident’s needs can change before their mattress, repositioning schedule or seating plan does. Less movement, a change in skin condition, difficulty tolerating a position or a new moisture problem are reasons to look again — not simply to continue the routine. The fourth edition of the International Pressure Injury Guideline, released in chapters through 2025 and 2026, is most useful read as the set of questions to ask when that happens.

This article draws five lessons from the chapters on full body support surfaces, repositioning and mobilization, seating and heel pressure injuries. [1][2][3][4] It is a practical reading of what the current chapters say, not a line-by-line comparison with the 2019 edition.

About this summary

An Evergreen educational summary of selected International Guideline chapters. Practical examples illustrate their application; the guideline does not endorse Evergreen or its products.

01

Lesson 1 · SS1–SS4

Start with the person, then the surface.

  • SS3 · Strong recommendation
  • SS1 · SS2 · SS4 · Good practice statements

The guideline strongly recommends a pressure-redistribution foam (reactive) full body support surface for individuals at risk of pressure injuries (SS3). The panel explains that it made the recommendation strong “because the risk of harm in not using a full body support surface with pressure redistribution features for individuals at risk of PIs is very high,” and that modelling in aged care found the move to pressure-redistribution foam “has a high likelihood of being cost effective.” [1] This is not a recommendation for any mattress labelled foam: the pressure-redistribution characteristics are the point. The comparison behind SS3 is with foam surfaces without pressure-redistribution properties; it does not establish that foam outperforms alternating pressure or low air loss surfaces. Those comparisons are covered in Lesson 2. [1]

Selection then follows the person. SS4 names the factors: overall risk, the response of the skin and tissues, independence, mobility and activity, “posture and sleeping position and their effects on pressure redistribution,” the “need for microclimate management and shear reduction features,” and preferences and care goals. [1] Two good-practice statements add the practical layer. SS1 asks organizations to keep an inventory of, or access to, a range of surfaces appropriate to the setting, “maintained, stored and used in accordance with manufacturer recommendations,” with mattresses and overlays correctly fitted to the bed to avoid entrapment or falls, and overlay height checked against side-rail standards. SS2 asks for a surface or integrated bed system that accommodates the individual’s weight, height, size and body-mass distribution. [1]

In practice

Record why the surface was selected and what will prompt reassessment. A clinical rationale is more useful than a product name.

02

Lesson 2 · SS7, SS12–SS15

Escalate on assessment, not on stage.

  • SS7 · Guideline recommendation
  • SS12 · Good practice statement
  • SS13 · SS15 · Guideline recommendations
“Alternating pressure (active) air or air (reactive) full body support surfaces are usually reserved for individuals at higher risk or deteriorating skin condition or clinical condition.”

International Guideline, 4th ed. · Full Body Support Surfaces · 2026 [1]

For people at risk, the chapter names where alternating pressure fits: where available, alternating pressure air surfaces “may be more clinically effective and cost effective for individuals at the highest PI risk (e.g., individuals in critical care) or for those seeking an alternative support surface option for comfort or when less frequent repositioning is the individual’s preferred option (e.g., palliative or end-of-life care).” The chapter adds that health professionals “also found these support surfaces easy to use.” [1] A randomized trial in nine French long-stay facilities shows the same fit in practice: among bedridden older residents with little or no ability to reposition themselves, new pressure injuries developed in 2 of 39 on an alternating-pressure air mattress versus 13 of 37 on viscoelastic foam within 30 days. Its authors conclude that when staff can’t reposition a resident at least every four hours, day and night, an alternating-pressure mattress “is an effective alternative” to viscoelastic foam. [5]

Several clinical trials and observational studies established that individuals experience easy bed movement and less pain with an alternating pressure (active) air support surface.

International Guideline, 4th ed. · Full Body Support Surfaces · 2026 [1]

When an injury already exists, SS12 asks for the surface to be re-evaluated, because “the support surface on which a PI developed usually does not provide an appropriate environment for healing.” [1] Its implementation guidance names four situations in which to consider a change:

SS12 · 01

The person cannot be positioned off the injury.

Offloading is not achievable on the current surface with the positions the person can tolerate. [1]

SS12 · 02

Injuries on two or more positioning surfaces.

For example, the sacrum and a greater trochanter — the positions used to offload one injury now load another. [1]

SS12 · 03

Failing to heal despite a comprehensive plan.

An injury that is not improving despite a comprehensive management plan and optimal topical wound care. [1]

SS12 · 04

Uncomfortable, or bottoming out.

The person is uncomfortable on the current surface, or the surface has bottomed out under them. [1]

For Stage 2 to 4 and unstageable injuries, the guideline’s suggestions include alternating pressure (SS13) and, separately, low air loss (SS15), with mobility, offloading, moisture, comfort and the healing trajectory guiding the choice. [1]

In practice

When mobility falls, skin or condition deteriorates, offloading becomes difficult, comfort limits care, or moisture and heat at the interface become a factor, reassess the surface alongside the rest of the plan.

03

Lesson 3 · SS4, SS11, SS15, S3I

Define the function: alternating pressure, microclimate — or both?

  • SS11 · SS15 · Guideline recommendations
  • S3I terminology · Position statement

Alternating pressure changes where load is carried over time. Low air loss is a construction that, in the Support Surface Standards Initiative definition the guideline adopts, uses a flow of air “to assist in pressure redistribution and may assist in managing the heat and humidity (microclimate) of the skin.” [1][6] They describe different functions, and a surface may offer one or both.

The guideline suggests a low air loss surface for people at risk “especially when moisture and heat at the skin-surface interface are contributing factors” (SS11) and for existing Stage 2 to 4 injuries (SS15). [1]

Two functions to understand

Alternating pressure

Changes where load is carried over time. [1]

Low air loss

Uses airflow to assist pressure redistribution and may assist management of heat and humidity at the skin–surface interface. [1][6]

In practice

Define the clinical need first — active pressure redistribution, management of heat and moisture, or both. Then choose a surface that provides those functions, and see it demonstrated with the bedside team before you decide.

04

Lesson 4 · R1–R8, R10, R11

Keep repositioning individualized. No surface replaces it.

  • R1 · R3 · R5 · Good practice statements
  • R7 · R8 · R10 · Guideline recommendations
  • R11 · Guideline recommendation

R1 is explicit: repositioning is good practice “regardless of the type of pressure redistribution full body support surface being used”; the interval “might be adjusted depending on the pressure redistribution capabilities of the support surface and the individual’s response”; and “no support surface can entirely replace repositioning.” [2] R5 lists what sets the interval: activity and mobility, ability to self-reposition, skin and tissue tolerance, clinical condition, comfort, sleep patterns, goals of care, and the support surface in use. [2]

R7 suggests two- or three-hourly repositioning for most people at risk “if they are also on an appropriate pressure redistribution full body support surface”; R8 suggests not routinely extending to four, five or six hours. [2] The implementation notes also ask teams to weigh “un-interrupted sleep versus more frequent PI preventive care” with the person and their carers, and to revisit that balance as priorities change. [2] With an air surface in place, the person’s skin response guides any change to the interval.

On technique, R10 suggests 30-degree lateral positioning, individualized so the sacrum and trochanter are both offloaded, with other prominences protected “using appropriate repositioning devices.” R3 makes equipment that reduces friction and shear during repositioning good practice; the chapter lists “mechanical lifting devices, transfer sheets, lateral air transfer devices, turn systems/devices, low friction fabrics” among that equipment. [2] Turn-assist surfaces are addressed directly: where adequate turn angle and offloading can be achieved, turn assist “might reduce the occupational health and safety risk with repositioning,” and automated turning may suit people who need frequent repositioning or have limited access to help. [2]

R11 suggests keeping the head of the bed at 30 degrees or lower to prevent pressure injuries, while noting that some clinical situations, such as a higher risk of aspiration, require more elevation. When the head of the bed is raised for those needs, the implementation notes ask teams to “re-evaluate the full body support surface and elevate the thighs to minimize sliding that can lead to shear,” and to consider sitting out of bed for meals or feeds where possible. [2] Wounds Canada adds that elevating the knees before raising the head of the bed can help decrease friction and shear. [7]

Canadian guidance shares the assessment principles and differs on interval wording. Ontario Health’s quality standard measures repositioning every 4 hours for long-term care residents at lower risk (Braden 10 or higher) who have a high-density foam mattress, and every 2 hours for residents at higher risk, and asks that support surfaces be provided “based on their assessment.” [8] Wounds Canada’s 2025 recommendations note that a pressure-redistributing surface “does not eliminate the need for repositioning, but it may extend the length of time before repositioning is required,” guided by the skin’s response. [7] RNAO’s fourth edition suggests repositioning people at risk every 2 to 4 hours. [9] Where interval wording differs, the 2026 chapters are the current international reference; provincial standards and facility policy govern practice.

In practice

Document the surface and the repositioning plan together — the positions the person can tolerate, how staff assist, and what change triggers review.

05

Lesson 5 · R2, S1, S2, H1

Connect the plan across lying, sitting and sleep.

  • R2 · S1 · H1 · Good practice statements
  • S2 · Strong recommendation, moderate certainty
  • H2 · Guideline recommendation

Prevention does not end when the person leaves the bed. The Repositioning chapter’s implementation guidance asks teams to “consider an individual’s positioning needs over a 24-hour period,” including “where and when they sleep, lie and sit,” with planning that “addresses body symmetry and postural support.” It describes positioning devices that “can assist in maintaining positioning, be used to elevate parts of the body off the support surface, and can promote body symmetry, posture and comfort,” placed so they do not load the very area meant to be relieved. [2]

The Seating chapter carries the second strong recommendation — a seating support surface with pressure-redistribution properties for people with or at risk of pressure injuries when seated (S2, moderate certainty) — and asks clinicians to “consider an individual’s posture over a 24-hour period, including where they sleep, sit, stand and walk” and to “integrate the use of different positions between the bed and the chair/wheelchair.” [3] The heels chapter’s first statement is good practice: elevate the heels so they are not in contact with the support surface, with a heel offloading device suited to the person’s mobility where appropriate. [4] A 2023 scoping review supports treating lying, sitting and standing as one coordinated framework. [10]

Three questions across the day

Lying & sleep

In the bed

How is the person supported between care interactions?

Sitting

In the chair

How does the seating plan connect with lying support?

Transitions

Across the day

How are positioning and handling carried across shifts?

In practice

Ask what happens between therapy sessions and across shifts. Can the team describe how the person is supported in bed, in the chair and during transitions?

Hypothetical teaching scenario · for discussion

Putting the five lessons together.

Consider a long-term care resident who is moving less after an illness, finds side-lying uncomfortable, and has a new area of non-blanchable redness over the sacrum. She is incontinent overnight and the night notes mention damp linen. She is on a high-density foam mattress with a two-hourly schedule.

The team reassesses risk and skin; checks the current surface for condition, fit and bottoming out; reviews the continence plan, absorbent products and skin protection so moisture exposure is managed at its source; and reviews the positions she can tolerate, how well the sacrum can be offloaded, her comfort, her seating and how staff move her. If, after those steps, offloading remains difficult and heat and moisture at the interface remain contributing factors, the surface’s function is reconsidered against SS4, SS11 and SS12 — alternating pressure, low air loss, or both — alongside the repositioning plan, and the rationale is documented against her assessment. The revised plan states what will be monitored, who reviews it, and when. [1][2]

Clinical takeaway. Selection is individualized. Alternating pressure or low air loss is the step when the assessment shows higher risk, deteriorating skin or condition, difficulty offloading, comfort needs, or heat and moisture at the interface. Positioning is planned across the 24 hours, in bed and in the chair, alongside repositioning.

Recognize when the current surface no longer meets the person’s needs, then evaluate the appropriate options with the rest of the care plan.

Questions clinicians ask

Three short answers.

Bring the evidence into practice

Connect the guideline with your team’s care.

Need help connecting surface selection with your team’s 24-hour positioning plan?

Or ask about a dealer-coordinated evaluation.

About Evergreen. Evergreen Medical Products supplies Canadian care settings, through authorized dealers, with pressure-redistribution foam surfaces, alternating-pressure and low-air-loss powered surfaces, and positioning supports for lying and sitting. The International Guideline does not endorse any manufacturer or product; this article is an educational reading of selected chapters.

Explore Evergreen’s support surfaces and positioning supports.

These links describe Evergreen’s range. They are not guideline endorsements or product-specific evidence.

Explore NG Positioning Cushions →

References

  1. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Full Body Support Surfaces. In: Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: International Clinical Practice Guideline. 4th ed.; chapter version dated 20 May 2026 (online chapter in three parts, page updated 25 August 2026). internationalguideline.com/surfaces.
  2. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Repositioning and Mobilization. In: Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: International Clinical Practice Guideline. 4th ed.; chapter version dated 14 May 2026, published online 24 August 2026. internationalguideline.com/repositioning.
  3. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Seating. In: Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: International Clinical Practice Guideline. 4th ed.; chapter version dated 22 May 2026. internationalguideline.com/seating.
  4. National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Preventing Heel Pressure Injuries. In: Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline. 4th ed.; chapter version dated 11 September 2025. internationalguideline.com/heels.
  5. Sauvage P, Touflet M, Pradere C, et al. Pressure ulcers prevention efficacy of an alternating pressure air mattress in elderly patients: E²MAO a randomised study. J Wound Care. 2017;26(6):304–312. doi:10.12968/jowc.2017.26.6.304. Turning frequency, Table 3 (p. 309); authors’ conclusion, p. 312.
  6. National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, Support Surface Standards Initiative. Low Air Loss Terminology Position Statement. NPIAP; 2024.
  7. Wounds Canada. Best Practice Recommendations for the Prevention and Management of Pressure Injuries. Wounds Canada; 2025.
  8. Ontario Health (Health Quality Ontario). Pressure Injuries: Care for Patients in All Settings. Quality Standard; 2017.
  9. Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. Pressure Injury Management: Risk Assessment, Prevention and Treatment. 4th ed. RNAO; 2024 (2025 web update).
  10. Osborne LJ, Gowran RJ, Casey J. Evidence for 24-hour posture management: a scoping review. Br J Occup Ther. 2023;86(3):176–187. doi:10.1177/03080226221148414.

This article is an educational resource for healthcare professionals and reflects Evergreen’s interpretation of the cited studies and guidelines; read the original sources for full methods and results. It is not intended to replace clinical judgment, individualized resident assessment, facility policy, or product instructions for use.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Monthly clinical insights, upcoming education sessions, and new product updates — for clinicians, DOCs, and dealers.

Unsubscribe anytime.