AimThis paper discusses the critical determinants of pressure ulcer development and proposes a new pressure ulcer conceptual framework.BackgroundRecent 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.DesignDiscussion Paper.Data SourcesThe 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 NursingA 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.ConclusionBy 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.

BackgroundPatients 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.MethodsWe 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).ResultsA 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).ConclusionOne 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.

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.