Evaluating evidence for stoma care nursing: appraising a randomised controlled trial of ostomy skin barriers

Background: Nursing practice should be evidence-based. As such, nurses should be able to rank sources according to a hierarchy of evidence and critically appraise the validity of studies. This is especially important in stoma care, where high-quality evidence is limited. Methods: Evidence appraisal is made easier by tools, such as the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT). CASP was used to critique the ADVOCATE Trial, ( Colwell et al 2018 ), A Randomised Controlled Trial Determining Variance in Ostomy Skin Condition and the Economic Impact (ADVOCATE Trial), which had an adaptive design and compared the cost efficiency and efficacy of a ceramide-infused two-piece skin barrier with a comparator. The participants were randomised, and the trial was double blinded. Results: The trial addressed clearly focused issues. The improvement in cost efficacy for the trial group was statistically significant (p=0.017); in addition, three of six tertiary objectives were also statistically significant. Improvement in peristomal skin health was noticeable but not statistically significant. The results can be applied to other ostomy patient populations, and all clinically important outcomes were considered. Conclusion: CASP provided a staged and structured approach to review an RCT. It can help specialist nurses to find and apply relevant study findings to practice. CASP assessment found the ADVOCATE trial to be a reliable evidence base on which stoma care nurse could adjust their practice to optimise costs and peristomal skin health.