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.

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.

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.

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.

A retrospective analysis of the findings of pressure ulcer investigations in an acute trust in the UK.

UNLABELLED: The root cause analysis (RCA) process has been applied in this organisation since 2010 to investigate all severe pressure ulcers. A previous analysis of the findings from all RCAs completed during 2011-2013 identified actions for practice improvement. The current study reports the results of a further retrospective analysis following implementation of new evidence based investigation process. AIM: To analysis the findings from pressure ulcer investigations; compare the results to the previous study and reflect on the new investigation process. METHODS: Analysis was performed on data from completed RCAs during January-October 2014 to identify key themes and learning points. RESULTS: Thirty two pressure ulcer RCAs were included. Nutrition was the most common contributory factor, highlighting the issue of malnutrition in an acute care setting. The second most common contributory factor was medical conditions that lead to poor tissue perfusion. CONCLUSION: Severe pressure ulcers rarely occur due to a single root cause, but often due to a sequence of events. Patients frequently have multiple complex needs that increase their susceptibility, when this is in combination with a failure of care, a severe pressure ulcer can occur. The new investigation process had limited success in identifying organisational factors. Further work is needed to support staff in the investigation process.

What is different for people with MS who have pressure ulcers: A reflective study of the impact upon people's quality of life?

BACKGROUND: Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a progressive, degenerative disease of the central nervous system. People with advanced disease who have compromised mobility, activity, sensory and/or cognitive abilities are at risk of pressure ulcers. Having a pressure ulcer has a substantial impact on a person's quality of life; a generic pressure ulcer Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) framework has been used in this study. AIM: To explore the views and opinions of patients with MS who have a pressure ulcer using a thematic framework and compare these to the general pressure ulcer population. METHODS: Data for six MS patients was obtained through secondary analysis of transcripts from semi-structured interviews conducted during two studies which were part of a programme of HRQL Research. FINDINGS: Patients with MS reported that their pressure ulcer affected their lives physically, psychologically and socially. All were confined to bed (as part of their pressure ulcer treatment) and therefore unable to participate in activities. Difficulties with movement and activity were partially attributed to the MS. Patients with MS did not report feeling ill with their pressure ulcer and expressed positive emotions and optimism. Pain or discomfort was a feature of the pressure ulcer for most patients. CONCLUSIONS: Pressure ulcers have a major impact on QOL for all patients. Problems with mobility and activity associated with the pressure ulcer were confounded by the MS.

A prospective cohort study of prognostic factors for the healing of heel pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: pressure ulcers, 25-30% of which are on the heels are a major burden to patients and healthcare systems. A better understanding of factors associated with healing is required to inform treatment and research priorities. OBJECTIVES: to identify patient and pressure ulcer characteristics associated with the healing of heel pressure ulcers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: patients with heel pressure ulcers were recruited to a prospective cohort study in a large teaching hospital in the UK, with a maximum 18-month follow-up. Cox proportional hazards model regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors for healing. RESULTS: one hundred and forty of 148 patients recruited were analysed. They had 183 pressure ulcers: 77 ulcers healed, 5 were on limbs amputated prior to ulcer healing, 88 were on patients who died prior to healing, 11 were present at the end of the study and 2 were lost to follow-up. The median time to healing was 121 (range 8-440) days. Of 12 variables associated with healing (P ≤ 0.2), multi-variable analysis identified two factors which were independently predictive of healing including the presence of a severe (versus superficial) ulcer (hazard ratio = 0.48, P < 0.1) and the presence of peripheral arterial disease (hazard ratio = 0.40, P < 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: increased ulcer severity and the presence of peripheral arterial disease significantly reduced the probability of healing. Treatments for heel pressure ulcers should consider the severity of the ulcer and the presence of peripheral arterial disease.

Pressure-relieving devices for treating heel pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by pressure or shear. Pressure redistribution devices are used as part of the treatment to reduce the pressure on the ulcer. The anatomy of the heel and the susceptibility of the foot to vascular disease mean that pressure ulcers located there require a particular approach to pressure relief. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of pressure-relieving interventions for treating pressure ulcers on the heel. SEARCH METHODS: In May 2013, for this first update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid EMBASE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); and EBSCO CINAHL. No language or publication date restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of pressure-relieving devices on the healing of pressure ulcers of the heel. Participants were treated in any care setting. Interventions were any pressure-relieving devices including mattresses and specific heel devices. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts and selected studies for inclusion. Both review authors independently extracted data and assessed studies for risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: In our original review, only one study met the inclusion criteria. This study (141 participants) compared two mattress systems; however, losses to follow up were too great to permit reliable conclusions. We did not find any further relevant studies during this first update. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identified one small study at moderate to high risk of bias which provided no evidence to inform practice. More research is needed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ethical issues and challenges in pressure ulcer research - the research nurses' perspective.

AIM OF STUDY: This paper explores the issues faced by research nurses in pressure ulcer research through reflection on our own practice and subsequently addresses these issues through critical appraisal of the existing literature. METHODS: A critical reflection framework which provided an opportunity for group reflection and reflexivity was adopted to guide our reflection. Focus questions were formulated based on our reflections and used to inform our literature review. Keywords used in the literature review search included 'research nurse', ethical principles, ethical issues and reflection. A formal tool was used to appraise normative ethics articles. RESULTS: Reflection on our practice in pressure ulcer research identified four main issues: informed consent, confidentiality, methodological uncertainties and more generally the ethical dilemma of the conflict between our accountability and responsibility to the patients and obligations to the research studies. The notion of 'power relations' was found to permeate our practice as research nurses at all level. Six normative ethics papers were retrieved and critically appraised to aid our personal and professional learning and development in the conduct of ethical practice as research nurses in pressure ulcer research through the theory of practice which other research nurses and/or nurse researchers used in other disciplines. CONCLUSIONS: Four main ethical challenges and the issue of power relation were highlighted. Our reflection and the appraisal of the literature provided us the necessary knowledge and skills to better navigate these ethical challenges in the future.