OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to gain insight into the availability and quality of protocols for pressure ulcer prevention in homecare agencies in the Netherlands. DESIGN: A descriptive study was completed. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Forty-one homecare agencies in the Netherlands that provide nursing care were queried. INSTRUMENTS: Three instruments were used to collect data: (1) a structured questionnaire containing 46 closed and open-ended questions, (2) a checklist used by experts to analyze the protocols for conformity to guidelines, and (3) a tool used to generate a numerical score for each protocol based on the experts' reviews. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to all homecare agencies in the Netherlands that provided nursing care. The quality of each protocol was judged and scored by 3 pressure ulcer prevention experts. The scores were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A pressure ulcer protocol was available in 78% of the agencies. Seventy-five percent had at least 1 wound care nurse who spent an average of 10 hours per week on pressure ulcer prevention. In 20% of the agencies, no introduction or instruction was given to the nurses when the protocol was implemented. In 25% of the agencies, nurses did not participate in the revision of the protocol. At the end of 2003, only 13% of the agencies had executed 1 or more revisions of their protocol since 2002, when the last Dutch pressure ulcer guideline was introduced. The 26 pressure ulcer prevention protocols had a mean score of 47 points out of a maximum of 100 points (range 9 to 82; SD, 18). CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of protocols is considered an important adjunct in the prevention of pressure ulcers, 22% of the participating agencies did not have a pressure ulcer prevention protocol and 25% did not have wound care nurses, indicating a need for further promotion of standardized pressure ulcer prevention strategies. In addition, the available protocols were frequently of low quality or outdated, reflecting a need for increased attention to current and accurate tools to guide nursing practice.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to gain insight into the availability and quality of protocols for pressure ulcer prevention in homecare agencies in the Netherlands. DESIGN: A descriptive study was completed. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Forty-one homecare agencies in the Netherlands that provide nursing care were queried. INSTRUMENTS: Three instruments were used to collect data: (1) a structured questionnaire containing 46 closed and open-ended questions, (2) a checklist used by experts to analyze the protocols for conformity to guidelines, and (3) a tool used to generate a numerical score for each protocol based on the experts' reviews. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to all homecare agencies in the Netherlands that provided nursing care. The quality of each protocol was judged and scored by 3 pressure ulcer prevention experts. The scores were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A pressure ulcer protocol was available in 78% of the agencies. Seventy-five percent had at least 1 wound care nurse who spent an average of 10 hours per week on pressure ulcer prevention. In 20% of the agencies, no introduction or instruction was given to the nurses when the protocol was implemented. In 25% of the agencies, nurses did not participate in the revision of the protocol. At the end of 2003, only 13% of the agencies had executed 1 or more revisions of their protocol since 2002, when the last Dutch pressure ulcer guideline was introduced. The 26 pressure ulcer prevention protocols had a mean score of 47 points out of a maximum of 100 points (range 9 to 82; SD, 18). CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of protocols is considered an important adjunct in the prevention of pressure ulcers, 22% of the participating agencies did not have a pressure ulcer prevention protocol and 25% did not have wound care nurses, indicating a need for further promotion of standardized pressure ulcer prevention strategies. In addition, the available protocols were frequently of low quality or outdated, reflecting a need for increased attention to current and accurate tools to guide nursing practice.
Authors: Lisa Pinkney; Jane Nixon; Lyn Wilson; Susanne Coleman; Elizabeth McGinnis; Nikki Stubbs; Carol Dealey; Andrea Nelson; Malcolm Patterson; Justin Keen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 2.692