A realist evaluation of devices used for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers: An ethnographic study of clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: It is known that heel offloading devices are widely used in clinical practice for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers, even though there is a lack of robust, good quality evidence to inform their use. OBJECTIVE: To explore how and why heel offloading devices are used (or not used) and reasoning behind their use in population at high risk of developing heel pressure ulcers. METHODS: An ethnographic study was conducted as part of a realist evaluation in three orthopaedic wards in a large English hospital. Twelve observations took place, with 49 h and 35 min of patient care observed. A total of 32 patients were observed and 19 members of the nursing team were interviewed and in-depth interviews with the three ward managers were conducted. RESULTS: Although the focus of the study was on offloading devices, constant low pressure heel specific devices were also observed in use for pressure ulcer prevention, whilst offloading devices were perceived to be for higher risk patients or those already with a heel pressure ulcer. Nursing staff viewed leadership from the ward manager and the influence of the Tissue Viability Nurse Specialists as key mechanisms for the proactive use of devices. CONCLUSIONS: This study informs trial design as it has identified that a controlled clinical trial of both types of heel specific devices is required to inform evidence-based practice. Involving the ward managers and Tissue Viability Nurse Specialists during set up phase for clinical equipoise could improve recruitment. Tweetable abstract How, for whom, and in what circumstances do devices work to prevent heel pressure ulcers? Observations of clinical practice.

Offloading devices for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers: A realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Heel pressure ulcers can cause pain, reduce mobility, lead to longer hospital stays and in severe cases can lead to sepsis, amputation, and death. Offloading boots are marketed as heel pressure ulcer prevention devices, working by removing pressure to the heel, yet there is little good quality evidence about their clinical effectiveness. Given that evidence is not guiding use of these devices, this study aims to explore, how, when, and why these devices are used in hospital settings. OBJECTIVE: To explore how offloading devices are used to prevent heel pressure ulcers, for whom and in what circumstances. METHODS: A realist evaluation was undertaken to explore the contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes that might influence how offloading devices are implemented and used in clinical practice for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers in hospitals. Eight Tissue Viability Nurse Specialists from across the UK (England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) were interviewed. Questions sought to elicit whether, and in what ways, initial theories about the use of heel pressure ulcers fitted with interviewee's experiences. RESULTS: Thirteen initial theories were refined into three programme theories about how offloading devices are used by nurses 'proactively' to prevent heel pressure ulcers, 'reactively' to treat and minimise deterioration of early-stage pressure ulcers, and patient factors that influence how these devices are used. CONCLUSIONS: Offloading devices were used in clinical practice by all the interviewees. It was viewed that they were not suitable to be used by every patient, at every point in their inpatient journey, nor was it financially viable. However, the interviewees thought that identifying suitable 'at risk' patient groups that can maintain use of the devices could lead to proactive and cost-effective use of the devices. This understanding of the contexts and mechanisms that influence the effective use of offloading devices has implications for clinical practice and design of clinical trials of offloading devices. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: How, for whom, and in what circumstances do offloading devices work to prevent heel pressure ulcers? Tissue viability nurses' perspectives.

Comparative effectiveness of heel-specific medical devices for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) impact on patient's quality of life and are costly for healthcare providers. Heels are a particular concern due to specific risk factors. Relative effectiveness of medical devices, e.g., dressings, off-loading devices, heel cushioning devices, to reduce PU development is unknown. METHODS: Systematic review of the effectiveness of heel-specific medical devices for the prevention of heel PU (HPU)s. Database searches were performed from inception to June 2021 for RCTs. The primary outcome was incidence of new HPUs. Trials were assessed for risk of bias and data analysed with risk ratios, mean difference or hazard ratios as appropriate. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs (4724 participants) were identified. Dressings, as constant low pressure (CLP) devices vs standard care: eight trials (very low quality) showed no-significant difference in effectiveness (RR 0.31, 95%CI 0.10 to 1.01). Off-loading devices vs standard care: three trials (low quality), showed significant reduction in development of Category≥1 HPUs (RR 0.20, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.80) two trials (medium quality), showed significant reduction in development of Category≥2 HPUs (RR 0.08, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.67). Comparisons between off-loading devices: two trials (low quality) showed no clear difference in HPU incidence. In a paediatric post-surgical population, one trial of off-loading device and one of a dressing (CLP device), both versus standard care, showed no clear difference in HPU incidence (RR 0.19 95%CI 0.02 to 1.55 and RR 0.89 95%CI 0.56 to 1.42 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Off-loading devices may reduce HPU incidence, from low-quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that dressings reduce HPU incidence.

Healing of ExcisionAl wounds on Lower legs by Secondary intention (HEALS) cohort study. Part 1: a multicentre prospective observational cohort study in patients without planned compression.

BACKGROUND: There is no agreed treatment pathway following excision of keratinocyte cancer (KC). Compression therapy is considered beneficial for secondary intention healing on the lower leg; however, there is a lack of supportive evidence. To plan a randomized controlled trial (RCT), suitable data are needed. We report a multicentre prospective observational cohort study in this patient population with the intention of informing a future trial design. AIM: To estimate the time to healing in wounds healing by secondary intention without planned postoperative compression, following excision of KC on the lower leg; to characterize the patient population, including factors affecting healing; and to assess the incidence of complications. METHODS: This was a multicentre prospective observational cohort study. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years with planned excision of KC on the lower leg and healing by secondary intention, an ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI) of ≥ 0.8; and written informed consent. Exclusion criteria included planned excision with primary closure, skin graft or flap; compression therapy for another indication; planned compression; inability of patient to receive, comply with or tolerate high compression; or a suspected diagnosis other than KC. RESULTS: This study recruited 58 patients from 9 secondary care dermatology clinics. In the analysis population (n = 53), mean age was 81 years (range 25-97 years), median time to healing was 81 days (95% CI 73-92) and 45 patients (84.9%) had healing of the wound at the 6-month follow-up. The healing prognostic factors were wound parameters and ABPI. Wound infections occurred in 16 participants (30.2%). Four patients (7.5%) were admitted to hospital; three because of an infection and one because of a fall. CONCLUSIONS: The collected data have informed the RCT preparation. A relatively high proportion (7.5-15%) of unhealed wounds, infection and hospital admissions demonstrate the need for clearly establishing potentially effective treatments to improve outcomes for this population.

Healing of ExcisionAl wounds on Lower legs by Secondary intention (HEALS) cohort study. Part 2: feasibility data from a multicentre prospective observational cohort study to inform a future randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Compression therapy is considered beneficial for postsurgical lower leg wound healing by secondary intention; however, there is a lack of supportive evidence. To plan a randomized controlled trial (RCT), suitable data are needed. AIM: To determine the feasibility of recruitment and estimate recruitment rate; to understand the standard postoperative wound management pathway; to determine uptake of optional additional clinic visits for healing confirmation; and to explore patient acceptability of compression bandaging and plan a future RCT. METHODS: Participant recruitment was performed from secondary care dermatology clinics, during a period of 22 months. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, planned excision of keratinocyte cancer on the lower leg with healing by secondary intention and an ankle-brachial pressure index of ≥ 0.8. Exclusion criteria were planned primary closure/graft or flap; inability to receive, comply with or tolerate high compression; planned compression; or suspected melanoma. Patients were followed up weekly (maximum 6 months) in secondary care clinics and/or by telephone. Information was collected on healthcare resource use, unplanned compression, wound healing and an optional clinic visit to confirm healing. RESULTS: This study recruited 58 patients from 9 secondary care dermatology clinics over 22 months. Mean recruitment/centre/month was 0.8 (range 0.1-2.3). Four centres had dedicated Research Nurse support. The analysis population (n = 53) had weekly follow-up assessments. Standard care clinical contacts were: general practitioner (7 visits; 1.2%), community nurse (169; 28.5%), practice nurse visits (189; 31.8%) and dermatology clinic visits (138; 23.2%). Participants whose wounds healed (34 of 45; 75.6%) attended an optional clinic visit. CONCLUSION: Data were obtained to inform a future RCT. Recruitment rates were found to be higher in centres with dedicated research support. People would be willing to take part in a trial and attend a confirmation of healing visit.

Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): using photography for blinded central endpoint review.

BACKGROUND: PRESSURE 2 is a randomised evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two types of mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers (PUs). The primary clinical endpoint was time to development of a category ≥2 PU. The current 'gold standard' for PU identification is expert clinical assessment. Due to the mattress appearance, a blinded assessment of the endpoint is not possible. This poses a risk to the internal validity of the study. A possible approach is to use photographs of skin sites, with central blinded review. However, there are practical and scientific concerns including patients' consent to photographs, burden of data collection, photograph quality, data completeness and comparison of photographs to the current 'gold standard'. This paper reports the findings of the PRESSURE 2 photographic validation sub-study. METHOD: Where consent was obtained, photographs were taken of all category ≥2 PUs on the first presentation to assess over-reporting, and for the assessment of under-reporting, a random sample of 10% patients had an assessment by an independent clinical assessor who also photographed two skin sites. The staff were trained in taking and transferring photographs using standardised procedures and equipment. A card included in the photograph recorded participant details and a 'greyscale' for correction of white balance during processing. Three blinded reviewers assessed the photographs and rated how confident they were in their assessment. RESULTS: The trial recruited 2029 patients; 85% consented to photography, and 532 photographs were received and used in the blinded central review. The level of confidence varied by skin classification with more confidence observed when the skin was assessed as being less severe than a category ≥2 PU. Overall, there was a very good reliability compared to the gold standard expert clinical assessment (87.8%, kappa 0.82). CONCLUSION: Study findings have usefully informed the scientific and practical issues of blinded assessment of PU status to reducing the risk of bias in medical device trials. The reliability of central blinded expert photography was found to be 'very good' (PABAK). Photographs have been found to be an acceptable method of data validation for participants. Methods to improve the quality of photographs would increase the confidence in the assessments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN01151335 . Registered on 19 April 2013.

Multiple Interventions for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Treatment Trial (MIDFUT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes affects more than 425 million people worldwide with a lifetime risk of diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) of up to 25%. Management includes wound debridement, wound dressings, offloading, treatment of infection and ischaemia, optimising glycaemic control; use of advanced adjuvant therapies is limited by high cost and lack of robust evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, seamless phase II/III, open, parallel group, multi-arm multi-stage randomised controlled trial in patients with a hard-to-heal DFU, with blinded outcome assessment. A maximum of 447 participants will be randomised (245 participants in phase II and 202 participants in phase III). The phase II primary objective will determine the efficacy of treatment strategies including hydrosurgical debridement ± decellularised dermal allograft, or the combination with negative pressure wound therapy, as an adjunct to treatment as usual (TAU), compared with TAU alone, with patients randomised in a 1:1:1:2 allocation. The outcome is achieving at least 50% reduction in index ulcer area at 4 weeks post randomisation.The phase III primary objective will determine whether one treatment strategy, continued from phase II, reduces time to healing of the index ulcer compared with TAU alone, with participants randomised in a 1:1 allocation. Secondary objectives will compare healing status of the index ulcer, infection rate, reulceration, quality of life, cost-effectiveness and incidence of adverse events over 52 weeks post randomisation. Phase II and phase III primary endpoint analysis will be conducted using a mixed-effects logistic regression model and Cox proportional hazards regression, respectively. A within-trial economic evaluation will be undertaken; the primary economic analysis will be a cost-utility analysis presenting ICERs for each treatment strategy in rank order of effectiveness, with effects expressed as quality-adjusted life years.The trial has predefined progression criteria for the selection of one treatment strategy into phase III based on efficacy, safety and costs at 4 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee Yorkshire and The Humber - Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee; approved 26 April 2017; (REC reference: 17/YH/0055). There is planned publication of a monograph in National Institute for Health Research journals and main trial results and associated papers in high-impact peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN64926597; registered on 6 June 2017.

Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces for Pressure Ulcer Prevention (PRESSURE 2): Clinical and Health Economic Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are complications of serious acute/chronic illness. Specialist mattresses used for prevention lack high quality effectiveness evidence. We aimed to compare clinical and cost effectiveness of 2 mattress types. METHODS: Multicentre, Phase III, open, prospective, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in 42 UK secondary/community in-patient facilities.2029 high risk (acutely ill, bedfast/chairfast and/or Category 1 PU/pain at PU site) adult in-patients were randomised (1:1, allocation concealment, minimisation with random element) factors including: centre, PU status, facility and consent type. Interventions were alternating pressure mattresses (APMs) or high specification foam (HSF) for maximum treatment phase 60 days. Primary outcome was time to development of new PU Category ≥ 2 from randomisation to 30 day post-treatment follow-up in intention-to treat population. Trial registration: ISRCTN 01151335. FINDINGS: Between August 2013 and November 2016, we randomised 2029 patients (1016 APMs: 1013 HSF) who developed 160(7.9%) PUs. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between groups for time to new PU Category ≥ 2 Fine and Gray Model Hazard Ratio HR = 0.76, 95%CI0.56-1.04); exact P = 0.0890; absolute difference 2%). There was a statistically significant difference in the treatment phase time to event sensitivity analysis, Fine and Gray model HR = 0.66, 95%CI, 0.46-0.93; exact P = 0.0176); 2.6% absolute difference). Economic analyses indicate that APM are cost-effective.There were no safety concerns. INTERPRETATION: In high risk (acutely ill, bedfast/chairfast/Category 1 PU/ pain on a PU site) in-patients, we found insufficient evidence of a difference in time to PU development at 30-day final follow-up, which may be related to a low event rate affecting trial power. APMs conferred a small treatment phase benefit. Patient preference, low PU incidence and small group differences suggests the need for improved targeting of APMs with decision making informed by patient preference/comfort/rehabilitation needs and the presence of potentially modifiable risk factors such as being completely immobile, nutritional deficits, lacking capacity and/or altered skin/Category1 PU.

Comparing alternating pressure mattresses and high-specification foam mattresses to prevent pressure ulcers in high-risk patients: the PRESSURE 2 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a burden to patients, carers and health-care providers. Specialist mattresses minimise the intensity and duration of pressure on vulnerable skin sites in at-risk patients. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Time to developing a new PU of category ≥ 2 in patients using an alternating pressure mattress (APM) compared with a high-specification foam mattress (HSFM). DESIGN: A multicentre, Phase III, open, prospective, planned as an adaptive double-triangular group sequential, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with an a priori sample size of 2954 participants. Randomisation used minimisation (incorporating a random element). SETTING: The trial was set in 42 secondary and community inpatient facilities in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients with evidence of acute illness and at a high risk of PU development. INTERVENTIONS AND FOLLOW-UP: APM or HSFM - the treatment phase lasted a maximum of 60 days; the final 30 days were post-treatment follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to event. RESULTS: From August 2013 to November 2016, 2029 participants were randomised to receive either APM (n = 1016) or HSFM (n = 1013). Primary end point - 30-day final follow-up: of the 2029 participants in the intention-to-treat population, 160 (7.9%) developed a new PU of category ≥ 2. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between groups for time to new PU of category ≥ 2 [Fine and Gray model HR 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.04; exact p-value of 0.0890 and 2% absolute difference]. Treatment phase sensitivity analysis: 132 (6.5%) participants developed a new PU of category ≥ 2 between randomisation and end of treatment phase. There was a statistically significant difference in the treatment phase time-to-event sensitivity analysis (Fine and Gray model HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.93; p = 0.0176 and 2.6% absolute difference). Secondary end points - 30-day final follow-up: new PUs of category ≥ 1 developed in 350 (17.2%) participants, with no evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development, (Fine and Gray model HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; p-value = 0.0733 and absolute difference 3.1%). New PUs of category ≥ 3 developed in 32 (1.6%) participants with insufficient evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development (Fine and Gray model HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.62; p = 0.5530 and absolute difference 0.4%). Of the 145 pre-existing PUs of category 2, 89 (61.4%) healed - there was insufficient evidence of a difference in time to healing (Fine and Gray model HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.68; p = 0.6122 and absolute difference 2.9%). Health economics - the within-trial and long-term analysis showed APM to be cost-effective compared with HSFM; however, the difference in costs models are small and the quality-adjusted life-year gains are very small. There were no safety concerns. Blinded photography substudy - the reliability of central blinded review compared with clinical assessment for PUs of category ≥ 2 was 'very good' (kappa statistic 0.82, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa 0.82). Quality-of-life substudy - the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life - Prevention (PU-QoL-P) instrument meets the established criteria for reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. LIMITATIONS: A lower than anticipated event rate. CONCLUSIONS: In acutely ill inpatients who are bedfast/chairfast and/or have a category 1 PU and/or localised skin pain, APMs confer a small treatment phase benefit that is diminished over time. Overall, the APM patient compliance, very low PU incidence rate observed and small differences between mattresses indicate the need for improved indicators for targeting of APMs and individualised decision-making. Decisions should take into account skin status, patient preferences (movement ability and rehabilitation needs) and the presence of factors that may be potentially modifiable through APM allocation, including being completely immobile, having nutritional deficits, lacking capacity and/or having altered skin/category 1 PU. FUTURE WORK: Explore the relationship between mental capacity, levels of independent movement, repositioning and PU development. Explore 'what works for whom and in what circumstances'. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01151335. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are patches of damaged skin, mainly caused by sitting/lying in one position. PUs are graded based on how serious they are, ranging from red patches (category 1) through small skin breaks/blisters (category 2) to serious wounds (category 4). Special mattresses are used to help prevent PUs. This study compared alternating pressure mattresses (APMs) with high-specification foam mattresses (HSFMs), to see which is better at preventing PUs. The study included adults admitted to hospital for acute illness who were at a high risk of developing PUs. Patients were randomly allocated to HSFM or APM. Nurses checked patients' skin and recorded changes. A total of 132 patients developed at least one new PU of category ≥ 2 before the end of treatment (60 days maximum). Of these, 53 patients were allocated to the APM arm and 79 to the HSFM arm, a difference of 2.6%. This is a small but significant difference. Nurses looked at patients' skin again 30 days after the patient had stopped using a trial mattress. At this point, 160 patients had at least one new PU (of category ≥ 2). Of these, 70 patients were allocated to the APM arm and 90 to the HSFM arm, a very small difference of 2.0%. Some patients asked to change mattresses; this happened more in the APM group. This study focused on high-risk patients; however, only a small number of people developed PUs, suggesting that prevention is possible with either mattress. Results also suggest that certain groups of patients may benefit more from APMs, for example people who cannot give consent or who have skin redness. When planning prevention and choosing mattresses, professionals and patients need to consider a number of factors, such as comfort, existing PUs and people's ability to self-care. Further research is recommended to understand what sort of prevention works, for whom and in what circumstances.

Comparison of generic and disease-specific measures in their ability to detect differences in pressure ulcer clinical groups.

Patient-reported outcomes can be included as end points in pressure ulcer (PU) intervention trials to provide information to inform decision-making and improve the lives of patients. However, the challenge for researchers and clinicians is identifying and choosing an appropriate instrument for each particular application that suits their research questions and clinical context. To provide researchers and clinicians with the information needed to inform choice of patient-reported outcome measures, we compared a generic and disease-specific measures' ability to discriminate between clinical groups known to differ, and determined their responsiveness to change. We performed analyses on a subset of patients recruited to the PRESSURE 2 trial that completed the pressure ulcer quality of life instrument-prevention version (PU-QOL-P) and Short Form 12 Questionnaire (SF12) measures at baseline and 30-day posttreatment. Known-group validity and responsiveness-to-change analyses were conducted. The analysis sample consisted of 617 patients that completed both measures at baseline. Known-group validity revealed that some PU-QOL-P symptoms and function scales differentiated between people with category 2 PUs and those without PUs. A less meaningful pattern of results was observed for the SF12 scales, suggesting that the PU-QOL-P is more sensitive to differences between PU and non-PU populations. Responsiveness analysis revealed that the PU-QOL-P was more responsive in detecting disease severity than the SF12. The PU-QOL-P provides a standardized method for assessing PU-specific symptoms and functioning outcomes and is suitable for quantifying the benefits of PU interventions from the patient's perspective. Generic measures are useful for group comparisons of global quality of life domains. Choice of measure for each particular application should be determined by the purpose of the measurement and the information required.

A patient-reported pressure ulcer health-related quality of life instrument for use in prevention trials (PU-QOL-P): psychometric evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure ulcer-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments should be used to inform patient care and provide a strong evidence base for interventions aimed at preventing pressure ulcers. The aim was to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the psychometric properties of a PRO instrument designed to assess symptoms and functional outcomes in patients at high-risk of developing pressure ulcers, the PU-QOL-P instrument. METHODS: We modified the original PU-QOL instrument to be suitable for patients at high risk of pressure ulcer development based on feedback from patients, specialist nurses and PRO methodologists. The modified PU-QOL-P instrument was administered to a sub-set of patients participating in the PRESSURE 2 trial. Patients completed PU-QOL-P and SF12 instruments at baseline, weeks 1 and 3, and 30 days post-treatment. We undertook psychometric evaluation of the modified PU-QOL-P to test scale targeting, scaling assumptions, reliability, validity and responsiveness. RESULTS: The analysis sample consisted of 617 patients that completed both instruments at baseline. We found that the PU-QOL-P instrument, consisting of nine PU-specific outcomes: three symptom and six function scales, meets established criteria for reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness. Internal consistency reliability was high with all scale Cronbach alpha > 0.795 (range 0.795-0.970). The factor analysis mostly supported the six-function scale structure. Scaling assumptions were satisfied; all item-total correlations above 0.30. Convergent validity was confirmed by significant correlations between hypothesized scales as expected. PU-QOL-P scales were responsive to change: mean scale scores from baseline to 30 days post-treatment were statistically significant for all scales apart the daily activities scale (effect sizes ranged from moderate to high). As expected, worse symptoms and functioning was observed in patients who had a category 1 or 2 PU compared to patients who did not have a PU. CONCLUSIONS: The PU-QOL-P provides a standardised method for assessing pressure ulcer-specific symptoms and functional outcomes for quantifying the benefits of associated interventions from the patient's perspective. It can be used in research with adults at risk of pressure ulcer development in all UK healthcare settings.

From embracing to managing risks.

OBJECTIVE: To assess developments over time in the capture, curation and use of quality and safety information in managing hospital services. SETTING: Four acute National Health Service hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: 111.5 hours of observation of hospital board and directorate meetings, and 72 hours of ward observations. 86 interviews with board level and middle managers and with ward managers and staff. RESULTS: There were substantial improvements in the quantity and quality of data produced for boards and middle managers between 2013 and 2016, starting from a low base. All four hospitals deployed data warehouses, repositories where datasets from otherwise disparate departmental systems could be managed. Three of them deployed real-time ward management systems, which were used extensively by nurses and other staff. CONCLUSIONS: The findings, particularly relating to the deployment of real-time ward management systems, are a corrective to the many negative accounts of information technology implementations. The hospital information infrastructures were elements in a wider move, away from a reliance on individual professionals exercising judgements and towards team-based and data-driven approaches to the active management of risks. They were not, though, using their fine-grained data to develop ultrasafe working practices.

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.

Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2) photographic validation sub-study: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: PRESSURE 2 is a randomised evaluation of the clinical and cost effectiveness of two types of pressure relieving mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers. The primary endpoint is the time to development of a Category ≥2 pressure ulcer. The current 'gold standard' for the identification of a Category ≥2 pressure ulcer is expert clinical assessment. Due to the appearance of the bed, it is not possible to achieve blinding of the endpoint. This therefore poses a risk to the internal validity of the study. A possible approach is to use photographs of skin sites, with central blinded review. However, there are practical and scientific concerns including whether patients would agree to photographs; the burden of data collection; the quality of photographs; the completeness of data; and how the use of photographs compares with the current 'gold standard'. This validation sub-study aims to assess and quantify potential bias in the reporting of the trial endpoint. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients will be specifically asked to consent to photographs being taken of their skin sites. Photographs will be taken at first observation or when patients develop a new Category ≥2 pressure ulcer (to assess over-reporting). A 10% random sample of patients will be identified for additional photographs of two skin sites (one torso and one limb) with and without a pressure ulcer (if present) by an independent assessor (to assess the potential for under-reporting). Staff will be trained to take photographs using a standardised camera and photographic technique. A 'grey scale' will be included in the photo to correct white balance. Photographs will be securely transferred for central review. Photographs will have white balance corrected, and the computer monitor will be calibrated prior to review. Analysis will include assessment of under- and over-reporting, acceptability of photography to patients, secure transfer of data, quality of and confidence in blinded photograph review and sensitivity analysis using photograph assessment of primary outcome. DISCUSSION: This study will use photographs to contribute to the primary outcome of the trial. It will inform our understanding of the acceptability of photography for prevention trials and the possibility of other uses of photographic data in clinical work and research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN01151335 . Registered on 14 May 2013.

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.

Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers represent a major burden to patients, carers and the healthcare system, affecting approximately 1 in 17 hospital and 1 in 20 community patients. They impact greatly on an individual's functional status and health-related quality of life. The mainstay of pressure ulcer prevention practice is the provision of pressure redistribution support surfaces and patient repositioning. The aim of the PRESSURE 2 study is to compare the two main mattress types utilised within the NHS: high-specification foam and alternating pressure mattresses, in the prevention of pressure ulcers. METHODS/DESIGN: PRESSURE 2 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, double triangular, group sequential, parallel group trial. A maximum of 2954 'high-risk' patients with evidence of acute illness will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either a high-specification foam mattress or alternating-pressure mattress in conjunction with an electric profiling bed frame. The primary objective of the trial is to compare mattresses in terms of the time to developing a new Category 2 or above pressure ulcer by 30 days post end of treatment phase. Secondary endpoints include time to developing new Category 1 and 3 or above pressure ulcers, time to healing of pre-existing Category 2 pressure ulcers, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, incidence of mattress change and safety. Validation objectives are to determine the responsiveness of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life-Prevention instrument and the feasibility of having a blinded endpoint assessment using photography. The trial will have a maximum of three planned analyses with unequally spaced reviews at event-driven coherent cut-points. The futility boundaries are constructed as non-binding to allow a decision for stopping early to be overruled by the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee. DISCUSSION: The double triangular, group sequential design of the PRESSURE 2 trial will provide an efficient design through the possibility of early stopping for demonstrating either superiority, inferiority of mattresses or futility of the trial. The trial optimises the potential for producing robust clinical evidence on the effectiveness of two commonly used mattresses in clinical practice earlier than in a conventional design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN01151335 . Registered on 14 May 2013. Protocol version: 5.0, dated 25 September 2015 Trial sponsor: Clare Skinner, Faculty Head of Research Support, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT; 0113 343 4897; C.E.Skinner@leeds.ac.uk.

Negative pressure wound therapy versus usual care for Surgical Wounds Healing by Secondary Intention (SWHSI trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Most incisions following surgery heal by primary intention, with the edges of the wound apposed with sutures or clips. However, some wounds may break open or be left to heal from the bottom up (i.e. healing by secondary intention). Surgical Wounds Healing by Secondary Intention (SWHSI) are often more complex to manage, and require additional treatments during the course of healing. There is significant uncertainty regarding the best treatment for these complex wounds, with limited robust evidence regarding the clinical and cost-effectiveness of different dressings and treatments; one such treatment is Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) which is frequently used in the management of SWHSI. Previous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of NPWT have failed to recruit to time and target, thus we aimed to conduct a pilot RCT to assess the feasibility of conducting a future, full-scale RCT. METHODS: This pilot RCT will test the methods and feasibility of recruiting, randomising, and retaining participants into a larger trial of NPWT verses usual care for patients with SWHSI. Participants will be randomised to receive either NPWT or usual care (no NPWT) and will be followed up for 3 months. DISCUSSION: This study will provide a full assessment of methods for, and feasibility of, recruiting, randomising, and retaining patients with SWHSI in a trial of NPWT versus usual care. On the basis of this pilot trial, a full trial may be proposed in the future which will provide additional, robust evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of NPWT in the management of SWHSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registry: ISRCTN12761776 , registered on 10 December 2015 - retrospective registration.

Managing Quality and Safety in Real Time? Evidence from an Interview Study.

Health systems around the world are investing increasing effort in monitoring care quality and safety. Dashboards can support this process, providing summary data on processes and outcomes of care, making use of data visualization techniques such as graphs. As part of a study exploring development and use of dashboards in English hospitals, we interviewed senior managers across 15 healthcare providers. Findings revealed substantial variation in sophistication of the dashboards in place, largely presenting retrospective data items determined by national bodies and dependent on manual collation from a number of systems. Where real time systems were in place, they supported staff in proactively managing quality and safety.