Search

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.

The aim of the study was to reach consensus on modifiable risk factors for a novel system of care to address Manifestations of Frailty in hospitalized older adults.Consensus study.A modified nominal group technique, incorporating expert group face-to-face interaction, review of existing evidence and pre/post-meeting questionnaire completion was undertaken November 2019-February 2020.Seventy-one risk factors, within seven risk factor domains (pain, medication, fluid and nutrition intake, mobility, elimination, infection, additional patient factors) were considered. It was agreed that 44 risk factors incorporating patient, organizational and environmental risk factors were modifiable and should be included in a novel system of care.

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 groups interviews with nursing staff (n=23) were performed after the implementation. The results of the record review and the focus groups interviews showed a 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 experienced that they did not receive any information about pressure ulcers. Key Messages · PURPOSE T demonstrates successful feasibility when implemented in clinical practice. · The study provides evidence that an electronic version of PURPOSE T can replace pressure ulcer risk assessment instruments that are used today. · Routines for sharing information with patients about pressure ulcers need to be prioritized in clinical practice.

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.

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.

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

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.

In order to overcome inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes in clinical trials, core outcome sets (COSs) have been developed in many clinical areas and the awareness of this concept is growing steadily. The Outcomes for Pressure Ulcer Trials (OUTPUTs) project aims to improve the quality of evidence from pressure ulcer prevention trials by developing a COS. As an initial step in the COS process we aimed to identify and classify both outcomes and concepts that represent potential outcomes for future trials that have been reported in pressure ulcer prevention research. A review was conducted in 12 major databases covering the literature indexed until 2016. Outcomes and relevant concepts reported in primary studies and/or reviews on pressure ulcer prevention in adult patients were extracted as presented in the articles, and afterwards inductively grouped into outcome domains. The domains were then categorized according to the outcome domain taxonomy recently proposed by the COMET group. In total 332 studies were included and 68 outcome domains were identified, covering multiple aspects of pressure ulcer prevention. Pressure ulcer occurrence was reported in 71% of all included studies, representing the most frequent outcome, followed by costs (22% of all studies) and acceptability of intervention and comfort (18% of all studies). A plethora of different outcomes are applied in pressure ulcer prevention research and substantial variations in definitions and reporting of similar outcomes were observed. A COS for pressure ulcer prevention trials is needed to overcome the noncomparability of outcomes.

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 pa-tients 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–re-test 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 in-struments was moderate. Conclusion: The evaluation of PURPOSE T demonstrated good psychometric char-acteristics. Further research is needed to evaluate PURPOSE T’s usability among reg-istered 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.

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.

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.

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 PUsThe 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 PUsThe 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.

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.

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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-018-1049-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

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.

Background PRESSURE 2 is a randomised evaluation of the clinical and cost effectiveness of two types of pressure relieving mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers. The primary endpoint is the time to development of a Category ≥2 pressure ulcer. The current ‘gold standard’ for the identification of a Category ≥2 pressure ulcer is expert clinical assessment. Due to the appearance of the bed, it is not possible to achieve blinding of the endpoint. This therefore poses a risk to the internal validity of the study. A possible approach is to use photographs of skin sites, with central blinded review. However, there are practical and scientific concerns including whether patients would agree to photographs; the burden of data collection; the quality of photographs; the completeness of data; and how the use of photographs compares with the current ‘gold standard’. This validation sub-study aims to assess and quantify potential bias in the reporting of the trial endpoint. Methods/design Patients will be specifically asked to consent to photographs being taken of their skin sites. Photographs will be taken at first observation or when patients develop a new Category ≥2 pressure ulcer (to assess over-reporting). A 10% random sample of patients will be identified for additional photographs of two skin sites (one torso and one limb) with and without a pressure ulcer (if present) by an independent assessor (to assess the potential for under-reporting). Staff will be trained to take photographs using a standardised camera and photographic technique. A ‘grey scale’ will be included in the photo to correct white balance. Photographs will be securely transferred for central review. Photographs will have white balance corrected, and the computer monitor will be calibrated prior to review. Analysis will include assessment of under- and over-reporting, acceptability of photography to patients, secure transfer of data, quality of and confidence in blinded photograph review and sensitivity analysis using photograph assessment of primary outcome. Discussion This study will use photographs to contribute to the primary outcome of the trial. It will inform our understanding of the acceptability of photography for prevention trials and the possibility of other uses of photographic data in clinical work and research. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN01151335. Registered on 14 May 2013. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1851-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: To explore pressure area related pain as a predictor of category ≥2 pressure ulcer (PU) development. Design: Multicentre prospective cohort study. Setting: UK hospital and community settings. Participants inclusion: Consenting acutely ill patients aged ≥18 years, defined as high risk (Braden bedfast/chairfast AND completely immobile/very limited mobility; pressure area related pain or; category 1 PU). Exclusion: Patients too unwell, unable to report pain, 2 or more category ≥2 PUs. Follow-up: Twice weekly for 30 days. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Development and time to development of one or more category ≥2 PUs. Results: Of 3819 screened, 1266 were eligible, 634 patients were recruited, 32 lost to follow-up, providing a 602 analysis population. 152 (25.2%) developed one or more category ≥2 PUs. 464 (77.1%) patients reported pressure area related pain on a healthy, altered or category 1 skin site of whom 130 (28.0%) developed a category ≥2 PU compared with 22 (15.9%) of those without pain. Full stepwise variable selection was used throughout the analyses. (1) Multivariable logistic regression model to assess 9 a priori factors: presence of category 1 PU (OR=3.25, 95% CI (2.17 to 4.86), p

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.

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.

Background Changes in healthcare and ageing populations have led to an increasing emphasis on the provision of healthcare in the community. Quality initiatives in healthcare have led to a focus upon pressure ulcer rates. However, published data on pressure ulcer prevalence in a community setting is currently very limited. Objective The objective of this cross-sectional observational study was to determine the prevalence of patients with pressure ulcers in a community setting in the United Kingdom. Design A cross-sectional observational study. Setting Two community settings in the North of England. Participants Patients in the community who were aged 18 years or older at the time of the pressure ulcer prevalence audit were included. There were no exclusion criteria and consent was not a requirement. Methods Each site used a different method to collect the data as per their usual method of prevalence data collection. Site 1 assessed all patients on the community nursing caseload: patients in residential homes, rehabilitation units, specialist palliative care units and all nursing homes in the locality, whether they were known to have a pressure ulcer or not. Site 2 assessed only those on the community nursing caseload who were known to have a pressure ulcer. Site 1 collected data between 8th February and 2nd April 2010 and site 2 between 12th April and 7th May 2010. Results In site 1, 185 patients were assessed as having a pressure ulcer Grade ≥1, a prevalence rate of 0.77 per 1000 adults. In Site 2 102 patients were assessed as having a Grade ≥1 pressure ulcer, a prevalence rate of 0.40 per 1000 adults. Removing patients in nursing homes from the calculation gives a prevalence of 0.38 per 1000 adults for site 1 and 0.39 per 1000 adults for site 2. Conclusions This study provides prevalence data in a community setting which can be used to assess resource allocation and staff training. This study has highlighted that differences in methodology can affect prevalence results, and this should be taken into account in future research.

Background Variation in development methods of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments has led to inconsistent inclusion of risk factors and concerns about content validity. A new evidenced-based Risk Assessment Instrument, the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary Or Secondary Evaluation Tool - PURPOSE-T was developed as part of a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) funded Pressure Ulcer Research Programme (PURPOSE: RP-PG-0407-10056). This paper reports the pre-test phase to assess and improve PURPOSE-T acceptability, usability and confirm content validity. Methods A descriptive study incorporating cognitive pre-testing methods and integration of service user views was undertaken over 3 cycles comprising PURPOSE-T training, a focus group and one-to-one think-aloud interviews. Clinical nurses from 2 acute and 2 community NHS Trusts, were grouped according to job role. Focus group participants used 3 vignettes to complete PURPOSE-T assessments and then participated in the focus group. Think-aloud participants were interviewed during their completion of PURPOSE-T. After each pre-test cycle analysis was undertaken and adjustment/improvements made to PURPOSE-T in an iterative process. This incorporated the use of descriptive statistics for data completeness and decision rule compliance and directed content analysis for interview and focus group data. Data were collected April 2012-June 2012. Results Thirty-four nurses participated in 3 pre-test cycles. Data from 3 focus groups, 12 think-aloud interviews incorporating 101 PURPOSE-T assessments led to changes to improve instrument content and design, flow and format, decision support and item-specific wording. Acceptability and usability were demonstrated by improved data completion and appropriate risk pathway allocation. The pre-test also confirmed content validity with clinical nurses. Conclusions The pre-test was an important step in the development of the preliminary PURPOSE-T and the methods used may have wider instrument development application. PURPOSE-T proposes a new approach to pressure ulcer risk assessment, incorporating a screening stage, the inclusion of skin status to distinguish between those who require primary prevention and those who require secondary prevention/treatment and the use of colour to support pathway allocation and decision making. Further clinical evaluation is planned to assess the reliability and validity of PURPOSE-T and it’s impact on care processes and patient outcomes.

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

Pressure ulcer trials often use development of category≥2 pressure ulcers as an endpoint[1]. Research nurses regularly assess patient's skin to capture pressure ulcer development, however missed assessments may lead to missed pressure ulcers and capturing data from routine care may be an alternative. Pressure ulcer monitoring systems have been introduced in the English NHS including the Safety Thermometer. A project, funded by the Tissue Viability Society and supported by NHS England, comprised a pressure ulcer/wound audit to assess the accuracy of current monitoring systems. The pressure ulcer/wound audit was conducted on the Safety Thermometer census date (October 2014) in a stratified random sample of Trusts providing in-patient services in England, using ‘gold-standard’ prevalence methods[2]. In addition the Trust audit lead completed a questionnaire to elicit information about local practice for pressure ulcer reporting. The results show low accuracy of routine pressure ulcer data sources; the weighted sensitivity estimate(95% CI) for the safety thermometer was 48.2%(35.4%-56.7%). The pressure ulcer/wound audit indicated that pressure ulcers reported on monitoring systems may not be readily obtained from clinical notes. These results support published data comparing ward and research nurse data[1]. Questionnaire responses indicated there was variation across Trusts in terms of pressure ulcer reporting across all monitoring systems. Therefore, results of the pressure ulcer/wound audit and questionnaire indicate that current routine data sources for pressure ulcer monitoring would not be satisfactory for use in pressure ulcer trials.

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.

Objectives This study focuses on the ways in which the organisational context can influence the development of severe pressure ulcers. Severe pressure ulcers are important indicators of failures in the organisation and delivery of treatment and care. We have a good understanding of patients’ risk factors, but a poor understanding of the role played by the organisational context in their development. Setting The study was undertaken in six sites in Yorkshire, England. The settings were sampled in order to maximise diversity, and included patients’ own homes, acute hospital medical and surgical wards, a community hospital and a nursing home during a period of respite care. Participants Data were collected about eight individuals who developed severe pressure ulcers, using a retrospective case study design. The data sources included interviews with individuals with severe pressure ulcers, and with staff who had treated and cared for them, and clinical notes. Results 4 accounts indicated that specific actions by clinicians contributed to the development of severe pressure ulcers. Seven of the 8 accounts indicated that they developed in organisational contexts where (1) clinicians failed to listen and respond to the patients’ or carers’ observations about their risks or the quality of their treatment and care, (2) clinicians failed to recognise and respond to clear signs that a patient had a pressure ulcer or was at risk of developing one and (3) services were not effectively coordinated. Conclusions Patient accounts could only be partially explained in terms of specific events or sequences of events. The findings support the conclusion that there was general acceptance of suboptimal clinical practices in 7 of the 8 contexts where patients developed severe pressure ulcers.

Following the launch this spring of the RCN's campaign to reduce injuries from manual lifting of patients, this article describes the main policies and guidelines relating to lifting and handling, and tells how these were used to develop and implement a 'no lifting' standard on an elderly care ward.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors independently predictive of pressure ulcer development in adult patient populations? DESIGN: A systematic review of primary research was undertaken, based upon methods recommended for effectiveness questions but adapted to identify observational risk factor studies. DATA SOURCES: Fourteen electronic databases were searched, each from inception until March 2010, with hand searching of specialist journals and conference proceedings; contact with experts and a citation search. There was no language restriction. REVIEW METHODS: Abstracts were screened, reviewed against the eligibility criteria, data extracted and quality appraised by at least one reviewer and checked by a second. Where necessary, statistical review was undertaken. We developed an assessment framework and quality classification based upon guidelines for assessing quality and methodological considerations in the analysis, meta-analysis and publication of observational studies. Studies were classified as high, moderate, low and very low quality. Risk factors were categorised into risk factor domains and sub-domains. Evidence tables were generated and a summary narrative synthesis by sub-domain and domain was undertaken. RESULTS: Of 5462 abstracts retrieved, 365 were identified as potentially eligible and 54 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The 54 studies included 34,449 patients and acute and community patient populations. Seventeen studies were classified as high or moderate quality, whilst 37 studies (68.5%) had inadequate numbers of pressure ulcers and other methodological limitations. Risk factors emerging most frequently as independent predictors of pressure ulcer development included three primary domains of mobility/activity, perfusion (including diabetes) and skin/pressure ulcer status. Skin moisture, age, haematological measures, nutrition and general health status are also important, but did not emerge as frequently as the three main domains. Body temperature and immunity may be important but require further confirmatory research. There is limited evidence that either race or gender is important. CONCLUSIONS: Overall there is no single factor which can explain pressure ulcer risk, rather a complex interplay of factors which increase the probability of pressure ulcer development. The review highlights the limitations of over-interpretation of results from individual studies and the benefits of reviewing results from a number of studies to develop a more reliable overall assessment of factors which are important in affecting patient susceptibility.

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

Epidermal growth factor (EGF) is a potent mitogen for a variety of cells in vitro, but studies on its effects in vivo and its possible role as a natural growth regulator are few. Using slow-release plastic implants, capable of delivering EGF to small regions of the gland over a period of several days, we have shown that EGF reinitiated ductal growth and morphogenesis in growth-static glands of ovariectomized mice. The effects of implanted EGF were confined to the zone around the implant and were time and dose dependent. Unimplanted glands in the same animal were unaffected. Local effects included (1) the formation of new ductal growth points (end buds), (2) the restoration of normal end bud histomorphology and the reappearance of a stem (cap) cell layer, (3) the reinitiation of epithelial DNA synthesis, and (4) an increase in ductal diameter. No lobulo-alveolar or hyperplastic growth was seen. Competitive binding assays and autoradiography were used to characterize EGF receptor activity in growing and static glands. High and low affinity receptors were demonstrated in each tissue, while 125I-EGF autoradiography revealed differential, specific binding of the ligand to certain epithelial and stromal elements. In the epithelium, label was concentrated in the cap cells of the end buds and in myoepithelial cells of the mammary ducts. Stromal cell label was heaviest adjacent to the epithelium in the end bud flank and subtending ducts, suggesting the induction of stromal EGF receptors by mammary epithelium. Because exogenous EGF is both a mitogenic and morphogenetic factor in this tissue and can serve as a locally acting substitute for known systemic mammogens such as estrogen and prolactin, it must be considered a strong candidate for a naturally occurring mammary tissue mitogen.

In culture, cAMP is known to be mitogenic for mammary cells and several other epithelia, but evidence for a similar role in vivo has been only correlative. We have used plastic implants to cause slow release of cholera toxin and other cAMP-active agents to local areas of mammary glands in ovariectomized mice. Elevated levels of intracellular cAMP around the implants promoted vigorous growth and normal ductal morphogenesis, while distant sites were unaffected. Local effects of cAMP included restoration of normal ductal caliber, formation of new end buds, and reinitiation of DNA synthesis in both epithelium and surrounding stroma. Thus, cAMP is both a mitogenic and a morphogenetic factor in this tissue.

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.