Using PURPOSE-T in clinical practice: A realist evaluation.

AIM: To explain how the clinical and organisational context influenced the way the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE-T) is used by nursing staff to support their clinical judgement and decision making about care planning and delivery. METHODS: A realist process evaluation was undertaken in a large acute hospital trust using mixed methods incorporating organisational policy review, staff semi-structured, ethnographic observation of clinical care and patient record review. Approximately 75 h of ethnographic field work involving 72 patients, 15 patient record reviews and 16 staff interviews were undertaken on 4 wards. FINDINGS: Findings suggest PURPOSE-T assisted nurses differently depending on their level of experience. Those with less experience use it as an educational guide, while those with more experience made an initial clinical judgement and used PURPOSE-T as a safety net to ensure they hadn't missed anything. Nurses were concerned about demonstrating good documentation of assessment, care planning and delivery in order to underpin consistent communication about care and because they had an underlying fear of being blamed if things went wrong. There is an array of other contextual features that impact the planning and delivery of pressure area care that go beyond the use of PURPOSE-T alone, including systematic equipment provision, competing patient safety initiatives and rehabilitation requirements. CONCLUSION: The findings reinforce the assertion that PU-RAIs are complex interventions and could inform the development of a more integrated system of care which takes into account the contextual features associated with PU prevention in modern hospitals.

The theory and practice of pressure ulcer/injury risk assessment: a critical discussion.

Pressure ulcer/injury (PU) risk assessment is widely considered an essential component in clinical practice. It is a complex and broad concept that includes different approaches, such as clinical judgement, using standardised risk assessment instruments, skin assessments, or using devices to measure skin or tissue properties. A distinction between PU risk assessment and early detection is important. PU risk measures the individual's susceptibility to developing a PU under a specific exposure (primary prevention), and early detection includes the assessment of early (sub)clinical signs and symptoms to prevent progression and to support healing (secondary prevention). PU risk is measured using prognostic/risk factors or prognostic models. Every risk estimate is a probability statement containing varying degrees of uncertainty. It therefore follows that every clinical decision based on risk estimates also contains uncertainty. PU risk assessment and prevention is a complex intervention, where delivery contains several interacting components. There is a huge body of evidence indicating that risk assessment and its outcomes, the selection of preventive interventions and PU incidence are not well connected. Methods for prognostic model development and testing in PU risk research must be improved and follow state-of-the-art methodological standards. Despite these challenges, we do have substantial knowledge about PU risk factors that helps us to make better clinical decisions. An important next step in the development of PU risk prediction might be the combination of clinical and other predictors for more individualised care. Any prognostic test or procedure must lead to better prevention at an acceptable cost.

Feasibility of PURPOSE T in clinical practice and patient participation-A mixed-method study.

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of implementing an electronic version of PURPOSE T, a risk assessment instrument for pressure ulcers, in a Swedish hospital ward. A mixed-method was used. Nursing staff received training in PURPOSE T and a record review was performed (n = 30). PURPOSE T replaced the Modified Norton Scale, and after one month another record review was performed (n = 30). Individual interviews with patients (n = 15) and focus group interviews with nursing staff (n = 23) were performed after the implementation. The results of the record review and the focus group interviews showed good clinical feasibility of PURPOSE T. The record review showed that more patients were at risk of developing pressure ulcers and more nursing interventions were prescribed with PURPOSE T compared to the Modified Norton Scale. The focus group interviews showed that all nursing staff were satisfied with PURPOSE T. The instrument contributed to increased reflection and analysis as well as the opportunity for nursing staff to draw their own conclusions regarding patients´ risk status. The documentation encouraged the prescription of more preventive actions, and the nurses were more involved at bedside. However, almost all the patients expressed not receiving any information about pressure ulcers.

Core outcomes for pressure ulcer prevention trials: results of an international consensus study: Classification: Outcomes and qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial heterogeneity between trial outcomes in pressure ulcer prevention research. The development of core outcome sets is one strategy to improve comparability between trial results and thus increase the quality of evidence. OBJECTIVES: To identify core outcomes for pressure ulcer prevention trials. METHODS: A workshop was held with service users to discuss their views and understanding of the outcomes identified by a scoping review and to identify any missing outcomes. In a next step, a Delphi survey comprising three rounds was conducted to evaluate a compiled list of outcomes by their importance. Afterwards the preselection from the Delphi survey was discussed in a virtual consensus meeting with the aim of agreeing on a final set of core outcomes. Individuals who had completed all three rounds of the Delphi survey were eligible to participate in this meeting. Participants included practitioners, service users, researchers and industry representatives. The OUTPUTs project is registered in the COMET database and is part of the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative. RESULTS: The workshop did not reveal any missing outcomes, but highlighted the need for further efforts to make lay people understand what an outcome is in a study setting. The Delphi survey took place between December 2020 and June 2021. After the three rounds, 18 out of 37 presented outcomes were rated to be critically important. In the following consensus meeting, six outcomes were prioritized to be included in the core outcome set for pressure ulcer prevention trials: (i) pressure ulcer occurrence; (ii) pressure ulcer precursor signs and symptoms; (iii) mobility; (iv) acceptability and comfort of intervention; (v) adherence/compliance; and (vi) adverse events/safety. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a comprehensive list of outcomes in pressure ulcer prevention research, there was clear agreement on the six identified core outcomes in three international Delphi rounds and in the consensus meeting. Although outcome measurement instruments need to be identified next, the six identified core outcomes should already be considered in future trials, as service users, practitioners, researchers and industry representatives have agreed that they are critically important. What is already known about this topic? There are numerous trials on pressure ulcer prevention, but evidence on the effectiveness of preventive measures is limited due to heterogeneity between trial outcomes. The development of a core outcome set is one strategy to improve comparability between trial results. What does this study add? A service user workshop, a three-round Delphi survey and an online consensus meeting with practitioners, service users, researchers and industry representatives were conducted to identify core outcomes for pressure ulcer prevention trials. Six core outcomes were defined: (i) pressure ulcer occurrence, (ii) pressure ulcer precursor signs and symptoms, (iii) mobility, (iv) acceptability and comfort of intervention, (v) adherence/compliance and (vi) adverse events/safety. What are the clinical implications of this work? Better evidence of interventions for pressure ulcer prevention will help health professionals and service users to decide which interventions are most appropriate and effective. Better evidence may contribute to better pressure ulcer prevention.

Risk factors for manifestations of frailty in hospitalized older adults: A qualitative study.

AIMS: To explore the experiences of older people and ward staff to identify modifiable factors (risk factors) which have the potential to reduce development or exacerbation of manifestations of frailty during hospitalization. To develop a theoretical framework of modifiable risk factors. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with recently discharged older people (n = 18) and focus groups with ward staff (n = 22) were undertaken between July and October 2019. Data were analysed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Themes identified related to attitude to risk, communication and, loss of routine, stimulation and confidence. Using findings from this study and previously identified literature, we developed a theoretical framework including 67 modifiable risk factors. Risk factors are grouped by patient risk factor domains (pain, medication, nutritional/fluid intake, mobility, elimination, infection, additional patient risk factors) and linked care management sub-domains (including risk factors relating to the ward environment, process of care, ward culture or broader organizational set up). Many of the additional 36 risk factors identified by this study were related to care management sub-domains. CONCLUSION: A co-ordinated approach is needed to address modifiable risk factors which lead to the development or exacerbation of manifestations of frailty in hospitalized older people. Risk assessment and management practices should not be duplicative and, should recognize and address modifiable risk factors which occur at the ward and organizational level. IMPACT: Some older people leave hospital more dependent than when they come in and this is, in part, due to the environment and process of care and not just the severity of their presenting illness. Many of the risk factors identified need to be addressed at an organizational rather than individual level. Findings will inform a programme of research to develop and test a novel system of care aimed at preventing loss of independence in hospitalized older people.

Pressure ulcer risk assessment-registered nurses´ experiences of using PURPOSE T: A focus group study.

AIM: To evaluate the clinical usability of PURPOSE T among registered nurses in Sweden. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are an adverse event and a problem worldwide. Risk assessment is a cornerstone, and a first step in pressure ulcer prevention is to identify possible risk patients and/or pressure ulcers. There are many pressure ulcer risk assessment instruments; however, they are not updated and/or evidence-based. PURPOSE T has been psychometrically evaluated in the UK and in Sweden with good inter-rater and test-retest reliability, and convergent validity was reported as moderate. DESIGN: A descriptive study design with a qualitative approach. METHODS: A total of six focus group interviews with 29 registered nurses were conducted. They were recruited from May 2018 to November 2018 from a university hospital and two nursing homes in Sweden. Data analysis was performed as described by Krueger. The study adheres to the COREQ guidelines. RESULTS: Four categories were identified: "An efficient risk assessment instrument performed at the bedside," "Deeper understanding and awareness of risk factors," "Benefits compared to the Modified Norton Scale" and "Necessity of integration of PURPOSE T in the electronic health record and team collaboration." CONCLUSION: The registered nurses acknowledged an overall positive perception of PURPOSE T´s clinical usability. Future research is needed to evaluate the feasibility of PURPOSE T. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: PURPOSE T has the potential to replace outdated pressure ulcers risk assessment instruments that are used today.

Reporting of pressure ulcers and medical device related pressure ulcers in policy and practice: A narrative literature review.

Pressure ulcers (PUs) occur in a range of care settings, resulting in reduced quality of life for the individual. There has been a growing awareness that medical devices can cause PUs, although reporting has been limited. There is a need to evaluate PU reporting practice and identify whether standards exist for medical device-related pressure ulcers (MDRPUs). AIM: To synthesize academic and grey literature relevant to reporting of PUs and MDRPUs in healthcare settings. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple scientific and grey literature databases was undertaken. Key search terms and Boolean operators were used to identify relevant literature. All sources of evidence discussing reporting practices were included in a synthesis. Primary topics are discussed in the corresponding analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-one evidence sources met the inclusion criteria, including 16 journal articles and 15 policy and guidance documents. The results revealed a variation in reporting practices. MDRPUs were often not identified as a separate category in local and national systems. Policies for related patient safety reporting varied across all organisational levels, with more serious categories of PUs reported more consistently. Reporting to medical device regulatory bodies was not mandatory. CONCLUSION: This narrative review identified inconsistencies in local and national reporting of PUs and MDRPUs, prohibiting meaningful comparisons and improvements in patient safety. Lack of specific medical device data and low levels of voluntary reporting to regulatory bodies is likely to result in an under-reporting, with little evidence of specific devices which may be a patient safety concern.

Searching for Programme theories for a realist evaluation: a case study comparing an academic database search and a simple Google search.

BACKGROUND: Realist methodologies are increasingly being used to evaluate complex interventions in health and social care. Programme theory (ideas and assumptions of how a particular intervention works) development is the first step in a realist evaluation or a realist synthesis, with literature reviews providing important evidence to support this. Deciding how to search for programme theories is challenging and there is limited guidance available. Using an example of identifying programme theories for a realist evaluation of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments in clinical practice, the authors explore and compare several different approaches to literature searching and highlight important methodological considerations for those embarking on a programme theory review. METHODS: We compared the performance of an academic database search with a simple Google search and developed an optimised search strategy for the identification primary references (i.e. documents providing the clearest examples of programme theories) associated with the use of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments (PU-RAIs). We identified the number of primary references and the total number of references retrieved per source. We then calculated the number needed to read (NNR) expressed as the total number of titles and abstracts screened to identify one relevant reference from each source. RESULTS: The academic database search (comprising CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, HMIC, Medline) identified 2 /10 primary references with a NNR of 1395.The Google search identified 7/10 primary references with a NNR of 10.1. The combined NNR was 286.3. The optimised search combining Google and CINAHL identified 10/10 primary references with a NNR of 40.2. CONCLUSION: The striking difference between the efficiency of the review's academic database and Google searches in finding relevant references prompted an in-depth comparison of the two types of search. The findings indicate the importance of including grey literature sources such as Google in this particular programme theory search, while acknowledging the need for transparency of methods. Further research is needed to facilitate improved guidance for programme theory searches to enhance practice in the realist field and to save researcher time and therefore resource.

PURPOSE T in Swedish hospital wards and nursing homes: A psychometric evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument.

AIM: To evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE T); reliability (inter-rater and test-retest) and validity (convergent validity) in a Swedish context. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are considered as an adverse event and are a problem in healthcare worldwide. The first step in pressure ulcer prevention is to identify patients that are at risk. PURPOSE T is a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument that was developed in the UK using "golden standard" instrument method. DESIGN: Observational, descriptive and comparative. METHODS: A total of 235 patients and 28 registered nurses were recruited (May 2018-November 2018) from six hospital wards at a university hospital and two community nursing homes in Sweden. Blinded (ward/nursing home nurses and expert nurses) PURPOSE T assessments and follow-up retests were undertaken. Cross-tabulation and kappa statistics were used to examine the reliability, and phi correlation was used to test the convergent validity. The study followed the STROBE guideline. RESULTS: The clinical evaluation showed "very good" (kappa) inter-rater and test-retest reliability for PURPOSE T assessment decision overall. The agreement of "at risk"/"not at risk" for both inter-rater and test-retest was also high, at least 95.5%. The convergent validity between PURPOSE T and other traditional assessment instruments was moderate. CONCLUSION: The evaluation of PURPOSE T demonstrated good psychometric characteristics. Further research is needed to evaluate PURPOSE T's usability among registered nurses. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: There is a lack of evidence-based validated pressure ulcer risk assessment instruments for use in health care. According to our findings, the Swedish version of PURPOSE T could be used in hospitals and nursing homes to identify patients in risk or with pressure ulcers.

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.

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.

Development of a generic wound care assessment minimum data set.

BACKGROUND: At present there is no established national minimum data set (MDS) for generic wound assessment in England, which has led to a lack of standardisation and variable assessment criteria being used across the country. This hampers the quality and monitoring of wound healing progress and treatment. AIM: To establish a generic wound assessment MDS to underpin clinical practice. METHOD: The project comprised 1) a literature review to provide an overview of wound assessment best practice and identify potential assessment criteria for inclusion in the MDS and 2) a structured consensus study using an adapted Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness method. This incorporated experts in the wound care field considering the evidence of a literature review and their experience to agree the assessment criteria to be included in the MDS. RESULTS: The literature review identified 24 papers that contained criteria which might be considered as part of generic wound assessment. From these papers 68 potential assessment items were identified and the expert group agreed that 37 (relating to general health information, baseline wound information, wound assessment parameters, wound symptoms and specialists) should be included in the MDS. DISCUSSION: Using a structured approach we have developed a generic wound assessment MDS to underpin wound assessment documentation and practice. It is anticipated that the MDS will facilitate a more consistent approach to generic wound assessment practice and support providers and commissioners of care to develop and re-focus services that promote improvements in wound care.

Pressure ulcer and wounds reporting in NHS hospitals in England part 2: Survey of monitoring systems.

This is the second of a two related papers describing work undertaken to compare and contrast Pressure Ulcer (PU) monitoring systems across NHS in-patient facilities in England. The work comprised 1) a PU/Wound Audit (PUWA) and 2) a survey of PU monitoring systems. This second paper focusses on the survey which explores differences in the implementation of PU adverse event monitoring systems in 24 NHS hospital Trusts in England. The survey questionnaire comprised 41 items incorporating single and multiple response options and free-text items and was completed by the PUWA Trust lead in liaison with key people in the organisation. All 24 (100%) Trusts returned the questionnaire, with high levels of data completeness (99.1%). The questionnaire results showed variation between Trusts in relation to the recording of PUs and their reporting as part of NHS prevalence and incident monitoring systems and to Trust boards and healthcare commissioners including the inclusion (or not) of device ulcers, unstageable ulcers, Deep Tissue Injury, combined PUs/Incontinence Associated Dermatitis, category ≥ 1 ulcers or category ≥ 2 ulcers, inherited ulcers, acquired ulcers, avoidable and unavoidable ulcers and the definition of Present On Admission. These fundamental differences in reporting preclude Trust to Trust comparisons of PU prevalence and incident reporting and monitoring systems due to variation in local application and data collection methods. The results of this work and the PUWA led to the development of recommendations for PU monitoring practice, many of which are internationally relevant.

Pressure ulcer and wounds reporting in NHS hospitals in England part 1: Audit of monitoring systems.

Internationally, health-care systems have attempted to assess the scale of and demonstrate improvement in patient harms. Pressure ulcer (PU) monitoring systems have been introduced across NHS in-patient facilities in England, including the Safety Thermometer (STh) (prevalence), Incident Reporting Systems (IRS) and the Strategic Executive Information System (STEIS) for serious incidents. This is the first of two related papers considering PU monitoring systems across NHS in-patient facilities in England and focusses on a Wound Audit (PUWA) to assess the accuracy of these systems. Part 2 of this work and recommendations are reported pp *-*. The PUWA was undertaken in line with 'gold-standard' PU prevalence methods in a stratified random sample of NHS Trusts; 24/34 (72.7%) invited NHS Trusts participated, from which 121 randomly selected wards and 2239 patients agreed to participate. PREVALENCE OF EXISTING PUS: The PUWA identified 160 (7.1%) patients with an existing PU, compared to 105 (4.7%) on STh. STh had a weighted sensitivity of 48.2% (95%CI 35.4%-56.7%) and weighted specificity of 99.0% (95%CI 98.99%-99.01%). EXISTING/HEALED PUS: The PUWA identified 189 (8.4%) patients with an existing/healed PU compared to 135 (6.0%) on IRS. IRS had an unweighted sensitivity of 53.4% (95%CI 46.3%-60.4%) and unweighted specificity of 98.3% (95%CI 97.7%-98.8%). 83 patients had one or more potentially serious PU on PUWA and 8 (9.6%) of these patients were reported on STEIS. The results identified high levels of under-reporting for all systems and highlighted data capture challenges, including the use of clinical staff to inform national monitoring systems and the completeness of clinical records for PUs.

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.

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.