Clinical evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE T).

AIM: To test the psychometric properties and clinical usability of a new Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instrument including inter-rater and test-retest reliability, convergent validity and data completeness. BACKGROUND: Methodological and practical limitations associated with traditional Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments, prompted a programme to work to develop a new instrument, as part of the National Institute for Health Research funded, Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (RP-PG-0407-10056). DESIGN: Observational field test. METHOD: For this clinical evaluation 230 patients were purposefully sampled across four broad levels of pressure ulcer risk with representation from four secondary care and four community NHS Trusts in England. Blinded and simultaneous paired (ward/community nurse and expert nurse) PURPOSE-T assessments were undertaken. Follow-up retest was undertaken by the expert nurse. Field notes of PURPOSE-T use were collected. Data were collected October 2012-January 2013. RESULTS: The clinical evaluation demonstrated "very good" (kappa) inter-rater and test-retest agreement for PURPOSE-T assessment decision overall. The percentage agreement for "problem/no problem" was over 75% for the main risk factors. Convergent validity demonstrated moderate to high associations with other measures of similar constructs. CONCLUSION: The PURPOSE-T evaluation facilitated the initial validation and clinical usability of the instrument and demonstrated that PURPOSE-T is suitable of use in clinical practice. Further study is needed to evaluate the impact of using the instrument on care processes and outcomes.

Challenges in pressure ulcer prevention.

Although this article is a stand-alone article, it sets the scene for later articles in this issue. Pressure ulcers are considered to be a largely preventable problem, and yet despite extensive training and the expenditure of a large amount of resources, they persist. This article reviews the current understanding of pressure ulcer aetiology: pressure, shear and microclimate. Individual risk factors for pressure ulceration also need to be understood in order to determine the level of risk of an individual. Such an assessment is essential to determine appropriate prevention strategies. The main prevention strategies in terms of reducing pressure and shear and managing microclimate are studied in this article. The problem of pressure ulceration related to medical devices is also considered as most of the standard prevention strategies are not effective in preventing this type of damage. Finally, the possibility of using dressings as an additional preventive strategy is raised along with the question: is there enough evidence to support their use?

Dressings as an adjunct to pressure ulcer prevention: consensus panel recommendations.

The formulation of recommendations on the use of wound dressings in pressure ulcer prevention was undertaken by a group of experts in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment from Australia, Portugal, UK and USA. After review of literature, they concluded that there is adequate evidence to recommend the use of five-layer silicone bordered dressings (Mepilex Border Sacrum(®) and 3 layer Mepilex Heel(®) dressings by Mölnlycke Health Care, Gothenburg, Sweden) for pressure ulcer prevention in the sacrum, buttocks and heels in high-risk patients, those in Emergency Department (ED), intensive care unit (ICU) and operating room (OR). Literature on which this recommendation is based includes one prospective randomised control trial, three cohort studies and two case series. Recommendations for dressing use in patients at high risk for pressure injury and shear injury were also provided.

Use of wound dressings to enhance prevention of pressure ulcers caused by medical devices.

Medical device related pressure ulcers (MDR PUs) are defined as pressure injuries associated with the use of devices applied for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes wherein the PU that develops has the same configuration as the device. Many institutions have reduced the incidence of traditional PUs (sacral, buttock and heel) and therefore the significance of MDR PU has become more apparent. The highest risk of MDR PU has been reported to be patients with impaired sensory perception, such as neuropathy, and an impaired ability for the patient to communicate discomfort, for example, oral intubation, language barriers, unconsciousness or non-verbal state. Patients in critical care units typify the high-risk patient and they often require more devices for monitoring and therapeutic purposes. An expert panel met to review the evidence on the prevention of MDR PUs and arrived at these conclusions: (i) consider applying dressings that demonstrate pressure redistribution and absorb moisture from body areas in contact with medical devices, tubing and fixators, (ii) in addition to dressings applied beneath medical devices, continue to lift and/or move the medical device to examine the skin beneath it and reposition for pressure relief and (iii) when simple repositioning does not relieve pressure, it is important not to create more pressure by placing dressings beneath tight devices.

Enhancing pressure ulcer prevention using wound dressings: what are the modes of action?

Recent clinical research has generated interest in the use of sacral wound dressings as preventive devices for patients at risk of ulceration. This study was conducted to identify the modes of action through which dressings can add to pressure ulcer prevention, for example, shear and friction force redistribution and pressure distribution. Bench testing was performed using nine commercially available dressings. The use of dressings can reduce the amplitude of shear stress and friction reaching the skin of patients at risk. They can also effectively redirect these forces to wider areas which minimises the mechanical loads upon skeletal prominences. Dressings can redistribute pressure based upon their effective Poisson ratio and larger deflection areas, providing greater load redistribution.

Developing a pressure ulcer risk factor minimum data set and risk assessment framework.

AIM: To agree a draft pressure ulcer risk factor Minimum Data Set to underpin the development of a new evidenced-based Risk Assessment Framework. BACKGROUND: A recent systematic review identified the need for a pressure ulcer risk factor Minimum Data Set and development and validation of an evidenced-based pressure ulcer Risk Assessment Framework. This was undertaken through the Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (RP-PG-0407-10056), funded by the National Institute for Health Research and incorporates five phases. This article reports phase two, a consensus study. DESIGN: Consensus study. METHOD: A modified nominal group technique based on the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method. This incorporated an expert group, review of the evidence and the views of a Patient and Public Involvement service user group. Data were collected December 2010-December 2011. FINDINGS: The risk factors and assessment items of the Minimum Data Set (including immobility, pressure ulcer and skin status, perfusion, diabetes, skin moisture, sensory perception and nutrition) were agreed. In addition, a draft Risk Assessment Framework incorporating all Minimum Data Set items was developed, comprising a two stage assessment process (screening and detailed full assessment) and decision pathways. CONCLUSION: The draft Risk Assessment Framework will undergo further design and pre-testing with clinical nurses to assess and improve its usability. It will then be evaluated in clinical practice to assess its validity and reliability. The Minimum Data Set could be used in future for large scale risk factor studies informing refinement of the Risk Assessment Framework.

A new pressure ulcer conceptual framework.

AIM: This paper discusses the critical determinants of pressure ulcer development and proposes a new pressure ulcer conceptual framework. BACKGROUND: Recent work to develop and validate a new evidence-based pressure ulcer risk assessment framework was undertaken. This formed part of a Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (RP-PG-0407-10056), funded by the National Institute for Health Research. The foundation for the risk assessment component incorporated a systematic review and a consensus study that highlighted the need to propose a new conceptual framework. DESIGN: Discussion Paper. DATA SOURCES: The new conceptual framework links evidence from biomechanical, physiological and epidemiological evidence, through use of data from a systematic review (search conducted March 2010), a consensus study (conducted December 2010-2011) and an international expert group meeting (conducted December 2011). IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: A new pressure ulcer conceptual framework incorporating key physiological and biomechanical components and their impact on internal strains, stresses and damage thresholds is proposed. Direct and key indirect causal factors suggested in a theoretical causal pathway are mapped to the physiological and biomechanical components of the framework. The new proposed conceptual framework provides the basis for understanding the critical determinants of pressure ulcer development and has the potential to influence risk assessment guidance and practice. It could also be used to underpin future research to explore the role of individual risk factors conceptually and operationally. CONCLUSION: By integrating existing knowledge from epidemiological, physiological and biomechanical evidence, a theoretical causal pathway and new conceptual framework are proposed with potential implications for practice and research.

Pressure ulcer related pain in community populations: a prevalence survey.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are costly to the healthcare provider and can have a major impact on patient's quality of life. One of the most distressing symptoms reported is pain. There is very little published data on the prevalence and details of pain experienced by patients with pressure ulcers, particularly in community populations. The study was conducted in two community NHS sites in the North of England. METHODS: The aim was to estimate the prevalence of pressure area related pain within a community population. We also explored the type and severity of the pain and its association with pressure ulcer classification. A cross-sectional survey was performed of community nurses caseloads to identify adult patients with pressure ulcers and associated pain. Consenting patients then had a full pain assessment and verification of pressure ulcer grade. RESULTS: A total of 287 patients were identified with pressure ulcers (0.51 per 1000 adult population). Of the 176 patients who were asked, 133 (75.6%) reported pain. 37 patients consented to a detailed pain assessment. Painful pressure ulcers of all grades and on nearly all body sites were identified. Pain intensity was not related to number or severity of pressure ulcer. Both inflammatory and neuropathic pain were reported at all body sites however the proportion of neuropathic pain was greater in pressure ulcers on lower limbs. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified the extent and type of pain suffered by community patients with pressure ulcers and indicates the need for systematic and regular pain assessment and treatment.

Systematic review of the use of prophylactic dressings in the prevention of pressure ulcers.

This systematic review considers the evidence supporting the use of prophylactic dressings for the prevention of pressure ulcer. Electronic database searches were conducted on 25 July 2013. The searches found 3026 titles and after removal of duplicate records 2819 titles were scanned against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 2777 were excluded based on their title and abstract primarily because they discussed pressure ulcer healing, the prevention and treatment of other chronic and acute wounds or where the intervention was not a prophylactic dressing (e.g. underpads, heel protectors and cushions). Finally, the full text of 42 papers were retrieved. When these 42 papers were reviewed, 21 were excluded and 21 were included in the review. The single high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) and the growing number of cohort, weak RCT and case series all suggest that the introduction of a dressing as part of pressure ulcer prevention may help reduce pressure ulcer incidence associated with medical devices especially in immobile intensive care unit patients. There is no firm clinical evidence at this time to suggest that one dressing type is more effective than other dressings.

Development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with pressure ulcers: the PU-QOL instrument.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are integral to patient care, policy decision making and healthcare delivery. PRO assessment in pressure ulcers is in its infancy, with few studies including PROs as study outcomes. Further, there are no pressure ulcer PRO instruments available. METHODS: We used gold-standard methods to develop and evaluate a new PRO instrument for people with pressure ulcers (the PU-QOL instrument). Firstly a conceptual framework was developed forming the basis of PU-QOL scales. Next an exhaustive item pool was used to produce a draft instrument that was pretested using mixed methods (cognitive interviews and Rasch Measurement Theory). Finally, we undertook psychometric evaluation in two parts. This first part was item reduction, using PU-QOL data from 227 patients. The second part was reliability and validity evaluation of the item-reduced version using both Traditional and Rasch methods, on PU-QOL data from 229 patients. RESULTS: The final PU-QOL contains 10 scales for measuring symptoms, physical functioning, psychological well-being and social participation specific to pressure ulcers. It is intended for administration and patients rate the amount of "bother" attributed during the past week on a 3-point response scale. Scale scores are generated by summing items, with lower scores indicating better outcome. The PU-QOL instrument was found to be acceptable, reliable (Cronbach's alpha values ranging 0.89-0.97) and valid (hypothesised correlations between PU-QOL and SF-12 scores (r>0.30) and PU-QOL scales and sociodemographic variables (r<0.30) were consistent with predictions). CONCLUSIONS: The PU-QOL instrument provides a standardised method for assessing PROs, reflecting the domains in a pressure ulcer-specific conceptual framework. It is intended for evaluating patient orientated differences between interventions and in particular the impact from the perspective of patients.

The prevalence of pain at pressure areas and pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with pressure ulcers (PUs) report that pain is their most distressing symptom, but there are few PU pain prevalence studies. We sought to estimate the prevalence of unattributed pressure area related pain (UPAR pain) which was defined as pain, soreness or discomfort reported by patients, on an "at risk" or PU skin site, reported at a patient level. METHODS: We undertook pain prevalence surveys in 2 large UK teaching hospital NHS Trusts (6 hospitals) and a district general hospital NHS Trust (3 hospitals) during their routine annual PU prevalence audits. The hospitals provide secondary and tertiary care beds in acute and elective surgery, trauma and orthopaedics, burns, medicine, elderly medicine, oncology and rehabilitation. Anonymised individual patient data were recorded by the ward nurse and PU prevalence team. The analysis of this prevalence survey included data summaries; no inferential statistical testing was planned or undertaken. Percentages were calculated using the total number of patients from the relevant population as the denominator (i.e. including all patients with missing data for that variable). RESULTS: A total of 3,397 patients in 9 acute hospitals were included in routine PU prevalence audits and, of these, 2010 (59.2%) patients participated in the pain prevalence study. UPAR pain prevalence was 16.3% (327/2010). 1769 patients had no PUs and of these 223 patients reported UPAR pain, a prevalence of 12.6%. Of the 241 people with pressure ulcers, 104 patients reported pain, a UPAR pain prevalence of 43.2% (104/241). CONCLUSION: One in six people in acute hospitals experience UPAR pain on 'at risk' or PU skin sites; one in every 8 people without PUs and, more than 2 out of every five people with PUs. The results provide a clear indication that all patients should be asked if they have pain at pressure areas even when they do not have a PU.

Achieving consensus in pressure ulcer reporting.

Pressure ulcers are considered to be a key quality indicator and healthcare providers in England are required to report local pressure ulcer rates. However, there is a lack of standardisation in reporting due to lack of national guidance. The Tissue Viability Society has sought to develop consensus amongst all concerned parties on the most useful and robust methods of data collection. This document has been developed following a consensus meeting and consultation with the majority of Tissue Viability Nurses across England and provides guidance on reporting pressure ulcer rates. It is intended for use all organisations that are involved in the reporting of pressure ulcers. It represents the consensus view of a large number of Tissue Viability Nurses from across England and we recommend its adoption.

Skin care and pressure ulcers.

PURPOSE: To familiarize wound care practitioners with current evidence related to skin care and pressure ulcer prevention. TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for healthcare professionals with an interest in wound care. OBJECTIVES: After reading this article and taking this test, the reader should be able to: 1. Describe features of normal structure and function of the skin. 2. Discuss the pathophysiology of pressure ulcers. 3. Identify risk factors for skin breakdown. 4. Discuss staging, prevention, and treatment of skin breakdown.

Dilemmas in measuring and using pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence: an international consensus.

Pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence data are increasingly being used as indicators of quality of care and the efficacy of pressure ulcer prevention protocols. In some health care systems, the occurrence of pressure ulcers is also being linked to reimbursement. The wider use of these epidemiological analyses necessitates that all those involved in pressure ulcer care and prevention have a clear understanding of the definitions and implications of prevalence and incidence rates. In addition, an appreciation of the potential difficulties in conducting prevalence and incidence studies and the possible explanations for differences between studies are important. An international group of experts has worked to produce a consensus document that aims to delineate and discuss the important issues involved, and to provide guidance on approaches to conducting and interpreting pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence studies. The group's main findings are summarised in this paper.

Hip fracture and pressure ulcers - the Pan-European Pressure Ulcer Study - intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors.

Pressure ulcers (PU) in patients with hip fracture remain a problem. Incidence of between 8.8% and 55% have been reported. There are few studies focusing on the specific patient-, surgery- and care-related risk indicators in this group. The aims of the study were: - to investigate prevalence and incidence of PU upon arrival and at discharge from hospital and to identify potential intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors for development of PU in patients admitted for hip fracture surgery, - to illuminate potential differences in patient logistics, surgery, PU prevalence and incidence and care between Northern and Southern Europe. Consecutive patients with hip fracture in six countries, Sweden, Finland, UK (North) and Spain, Italy and Portugal (South), were included. The patients were followed from Accident and Emergency Department and until discharge or 7 days. Prevalence, PU at discharge and incidence were investigated, and intrinsic and extrinsic risk indicators, including waiting time for surgery and duration of surgery were recorded. Of the 635 patients, 10% had PU upon arrival and 22% at discharge (26% North and 16% South). The majority of ulcers were grade 1 and none was grade 4. Cervical fractures were more common in the North and trochanteric in the South. Waiting time for surgery and duration of surgery were significantly longer in the South. Traction was more common in the South and perioperative warming in the North. Risk factors of statistical significance correlated to PU at discharge were age >or=71 (P = 0.020), dehydration (P = 0.005), moist skin (P = 0.004) and total Braden score (P = 0.050) as well as subscores for friction (P = 0.020), nutrition (P = 0.020) and sensory perception (P = 0.040). Comorbid conditions of statistical significance for development of PU were diabetes (P = 0.005) and pulmonary disease (P = 0.006). Waiting time for surgery, duration of surgery, warming or non warming perioperatively, type of anaesthesia, traction and type of fracture were not significantly correlated with development of PU.

Pressure ulcer prevalence in Europe: a pilot study.

RATIONALE AND AIMS: Numerous prevalence studies have been conducted. The problem with these studies is that prevalence proportions cannot be compared with each other, because of differences in performance of each survey. There is no agreed standardized method for determining prevalence proportions. This study aimed to develop and pilot a uniform data collection instrument and methodology to measure the pressure ulcer prevalence and to get some insight into pressure ulcer prevalence across different patient groups in Europe. METHODS: Pressure ulcer experts from different European countries developed a data collection instrument, which included five categories of data: general data, patient data, risk assessment, skin observation and prevention. A convenience sample of university and general hospitals of Belgium, Italy, Portugal, UK and Sweden participated in the study. In each participating hospital, teams of two trained nurses who collected the data on the wards were established. All patients admitted before midnight on the day of the survey and older than 18 years were included. RESULTS: The data collection instrument and study procedure of the survey were found to be effective by all participants. 5947 patients were surveyed in 25 hospitals in five European countries. The pressure ulcer prevalence (grade 1-4) was 18.1% and if grade 1 ulcers were excluded, it was 10.5%. The sacrum and heels were the most affected locations. Only 9.7% of the patients in need of prevention received fully adequate preventive care. CONCLUSION: The methodology is sufficiently robust to measure and compare pressure ulcer prevalence in different countries. The pressure ulcer prevalence was higher than expected and relatively few patients received adequate prevention. This indicates that more attention to prevention is needed in Europe.

Patients' feelings about hand washing, MRSA status and patient information.

The purpose of this study was to explore patient opinion about asking healthcare professionals to wash their hands before a clinical procedure and to explore if methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) status and access to patient information about infection control would influence the patients' anxiety about asking. A descriptive survey was undertaken using a semi-structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to a randomized convenience sample of 185 inpatients across all departments of an acute NHS Trust hospital (response rate 58.9%). Spearman's rank order and Kendall Tau-b tests were used to analyse specific correlations. Respondents were more confident than anxious about being involved in a campaign that empowered patients to ask staff to wash their hands. Patients were more anxious to ask if their previous admission episodes were fewer, if their knowledge of MRSA was high and if there was less information about infection control available. Patients who had contracted MRSA in the past were less anxious, as they had a better understanding of the disease. In addition, more patients felt less anxious about asking staff to wash their hands if staff wore a badge saying 'It's OK to ask'.

The experience of living with a pressure ulcer.

This short paper presents a qualitative study, reported in detail elsewhere (Hopkins et al, 2006) that investigated the experience of older people with pressure ulcers. The researchers were surprised to find how significant pain associated with the pressure ulcer was to patients or the impact it had on their lives. All quotes from the participants are taken from Hopkins et al (2006).

Exploring the role of pain as an early predictor of category 2 pressure ulcers: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore pressure area related pain as a predictor of category ≥2 pressure ulcer (PU) development. DESIGN: Multicentre prospective cohort study. SETTING: UK hospital and community settings. PARTICIPANTS INCLUSION: Consenting acutely ill patients aged ≥18 years, defined as high risk (Braden bedfast/chairfast AND completely immobile/very limited mobility; pressure area related pain or; category 1 PU). EXCLUSION: Patients too unwell, unable to report pain, 2 or more category ≥2 PUs. FOLLOW-UP: Twice weekly for 30 days. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Development and time to development of one or more category ≥2 PUs. RESULTS: Of 3819 screened, 1266 were eligible, 634 patients were recruited, 32 lost to follow-up, providing a 602 analysis population. 152 (25.2%) developed one or more category ≥2 PUs. 464 (77.1%) patients reported pressure area related pain on a healthy, altered or category 1 skin site of whom 130 (28.0%) developed a category ≥2 PU compared with 22 (15.9%) of those without pain. Full stepwise variable selection was used throughout the analyses. (1) Multivariable logistic regression model to assess 9 a priori factors: presence of category 1 PU (OR=3.25, 95% CI (2.17 to 4.86), p<0.0001), alterations to intact skin (OR=1.98, 95% CI (1.30 to 3.00), p=0.0014), pressure area related pain (OR=1.56, 95% CI (0.93 to 2.63), p=0.0931). (2) Multivariable logistic regression model to account for overdispersion: presence of category 1 PU (OR=3.20, 95% CI (2.11 to 4.85), p<0.0001), alterations to intact skin (OR=1.90, 95% CI (1.24 to 2.91), p=0.0032), pressure area related pain (OR=1.85, 95% CI (1.07 to 3.20), p=0.0271), pre-existing category 2 PU (OR=2.09, 95% CI (1.35 to 3.23), p=0.0009), presence of chronic wound (OR=1.66, 95% CI (1.06 to 2.62), p=0.0277), Braden activity (p=0.0476). (3) Accelerated failure time model: presence of category 1 PU (AF=2.32, 95% CI (1.73 to 3.12), p<0.0001), pressure area related pain (AF=2.28, 95% CI (1.59 to 3.27), p<0.0001). (4) 2-level random-intercept logistic regression model: skin status which comprised 2 levels (versus healthy skin); alterations to intact skin (OR=4.65, 95% CI (3.01 to 7.18), p<0.0001), presence of category 1 PU (OR=17.30, 95% CI (11.09 to 27.00), p<0.0001) and pressure area related pain (OR=2.25, 95% CI (1.53 to 3.29), p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to assess pain as a predictor of category ≥2 PU development. In all 4 models, pain emerged as a risk factor associated with an increased probability of category ≥2 PU development.

The factors that influence patients' choice of hospital and treatment.

The Government has published a series of papers that aim to turn the NHS into a patient-led service. One aspect of this change is to allow patients choice in their selection of a hospital for elective surgery. This programme hopes eventually to extend choice to other areas of care. This article reviews the literature surrounding patient choice and identifies the issues that affect how patients will reach a decision. Although there is limited information on the subject, a clear difference has been identified between those with acute conditions and those with chronic conditions. Nurses need to be aware of both the policy and the underpinning concepts and patients' views of the topic because it will bring about a major change in the culture of the NHS.