BackgroundThe Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (PURPOSE) consisted of two themes. Theme 1 focused on improving our understanding of individuals’ and organisational risk factors and on improving the quality of risk assessments (work packages 1–3) and theme 2 focused on developing patient-reported outcome measures (work packages 4 and 5).MethodsThe programme comprised 21 individual pieces of work. Pain: (1) multicentre pain prevalence study in acute hospitals, (2) multicentre pain prevalence study in community localities incorporating (3) a comparison of case-finding methods, and (4) multicentre, prospective cohort study. Severe pressure ulcers: (5) retrospective case study, (6) patient involvement workshop with the Pressure Ulcer Research Service User Network for the UK (PURSUN UK) and (7) development of root cause analysis methodology. Risk assessment: (8) systematic review, (9) consensus study, (10) conceptual framework development and theoretical causal pathway, (11) design and pretesting of draft Risk Assessment Framework and (12) field test to assess reliability, validity, data completeness and clinical usability. Quality of life: (13) conceptual framework development (systematic review, patient interviews), (14 and 15) provisional instrument development, with items generated from patient interviews [from (1) above] two systematic reviews and experts, (16) pretesting of the provisional Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life (PU-QOL) instrument using mixed methods, (17) field test 1 including (18) optimal mode of administration substudy and item reduction with testing of scale formation, acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity, and (19) field test 2 – final psychometric evaluation to test scale targeting, item response categories, item fit, response bias, acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity. Cost–utility: (20) time trade-off task valuations of health states derived from selected PU-QOL items, and (21) validation of the items selected and psychometric properties of the new Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life Utility Index (PUQOL-UI).Key findingsPain: prevalence studies – hospital and community patients experience both pressure area-related and pressure ulcer pain; pain cohort study – indicates that pain is independently predictive of category 2 (and above) pressure ulcer development. Severe pressure ulcers: these were more likely to develop in contexts in which clinicians failed to listen to patients/carers or recognise/respond to high risk or the presence of an existing pressure ulcer and services were not effectively co-ordinated; service users found the interactive workshop format valuable; including novel components (interviews with patients and carers) in root cause analysis improves the quality of the insights captured. Risk assessment: we developed a Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Framework, the PURPOSE-T, incorporating the Minimum Data Set, a screening stage, a full assessment stage, use of colour to support decision-making, and decision pathways that make a clear distinction between patients with an existing pressure ulcer(s) (or scarring from previous ulcers) who require secondary prevention and treatment and those at risk who require primary prevention (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/accesspurposet). Quality of life: the final PU-QOL instrument consists of 10 scales to measure pain, exudate, odour, sleep, vitality, mobility/movement, daily activities, emotional well-being, self-consciousness and appearance, and participation (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/puqol-ques). Cost–utility: seven items were selected from the PU-QOL instrument for inclusion in the PUQOL-UI (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/puqol-ui); secondary study analysis indicated that item selection for the PUQOL-UI was appropriate and that the index was acceptable to patients and had adequate levels of validity.ConclusionsThe PURPOSE programme has provided important insights for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment and involvement of service users in research and development, with implications for patient and public involvement, clinical practice, quality/safety/health service management and research including replication of the pain risk factor study, work exploring ‘best practice’ settings, the impact of including skin status as an indicator for escalation of preventative interventions, further psychometric evaluation of PU-QOL and PUQOL-UI the measurement of ‘disease attribution.’FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

ObjectiveTo explore pressure area related pain as a predictor of category ≥2 pressure ulcer (PU) development.DesignMulticentre prospective cohort study.SettingUK hospital and community settings.Participants inclusionConsenting 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).ExclusionPatients too unwell, unable to report pain, 2 or more category ≥2 PUs.Follow-upTwice weekly for 30 days.Primary and secondary outcome measuresDevelopment and time to development of one or more category ≥2 PUs.ResultsOf 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).ConclusionsThis 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.

AimTo 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.BackgroundMethodological 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).DesignObservational field test.MethodFor 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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.

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.

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.

BackgroundPressure 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/DesignPRESSURE 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.DiscussionThe 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 2015Trial sponsor: Clare Skinner, Faculty Head of Research Support, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT; 0113 343 4897; C.E.Skinner@leeds.ac.uk.

BackgroundWhen designing and analysing clinical trials, using previous relevant information, perhaps in the form of evidence syntheses, can reduce research waste. We conducted the INVEST (INVestigating the use of Evidence Synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical Trials) survey to summarise the current use of evidence synthesis in trial design and analysis, to capture opinions of trialists and methodologists on such use, and to understand any barriers.MethodsOur sampling frame was all delegates attending the International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference in November 2015. Respondents were asked to indicate (1) their views on the use of evidence synthesis in trial design and analysis, (2) their own use during the past 10 years and (3) the three greatest barriers to use in practice.ResultsOf approximately 638 attendees of the conference, 106 (17%) completed the survey, half of whom were statisticians. Support was generally high for using a description of previous evidence, a systematic review or a meta-analysis in trial design. Generally, respondents did not seem to be using evidence syntheses as often as they felt they should. For example, only 50% (42/84 relevant respondents) had used a meta-analysis to inform whether a trial is needed compared with 74% (62/84) indicating that this is desirable. Only 6% (5/81 relevant respondents) had used a value of information analysis to inform sample size calculations versus 22% (18/81) indicating support for this. Surprisingly large numbers of participants indicated support for, and previous use of, evidence syntheses in trial analysis. For example, 79% (79/100) of respondents indicated that external information about the treatment effect should be used to inform aspects of the analysis. The greatest perceived barrier to using evidence synthesis methods in trial design or analysis was time constraints, followed by a belief that the new trial was the first in the area.ConclusionsEvidence syntheses can be resource-intensive, but their use in informing the design, conduct and analysis of clinical trials is widely considered desirable. We advocate additional research, training and investment in resources dedicated to ways in which evidence syntheses can be undertaken more efficiently, offering the potential for cost savings in the long term.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1955-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundPressure 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.MethodsMulticentre, 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.FindingsBetween 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.InterpretationIn 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.