You are not logged in.
Openly accessible

Process evaluation of a cluster-randomised trial testing a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle: a mixed-methods study

Roberts, Shelley, McInnes, Elizabeth, Bucknall, Tracey, Wallis, Marianne, Banks, Merrilyn and Chaboyer, Wendy 2017, Process evaluation of a cluster-randomised trial testing a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle: a mixed-methods study, Implementation science, vol. 12, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0547-2.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
bucknall-processevaluation-2017.pdf Published version application/pdf 489.95KB 5

Title Process evaluation of a cluster-randomised trial testing a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle: a mixed-methods study
Author(s) Roberts, Shelley
McInnes, Elizabeth
Bucknall, Tracey
Wallis, Marianne
Banks, Merrilyn
Chaboyer, Wendy
Journal name Implementation science
Volume number 12
Article ID 18
Start page 1
End page 9
Total pages 9
Publisher BioMed Central
Place of publication London, Eng.
Publication date 2017-02-13
ISSN 1748-5908
Keyword(s) care bundle
cluster-randomised trial
complex intervention
patient participation
pressure injury prevention
pressure ulcer prevention
process evaluation
Summary BACKGROUND: As pressure ulcers contribute to significant patient burden and increased health care costs, their prevention is a clinical priority. Our team developed and tested a complex intervention, a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle promoting patient participation in care, in a cluster-randomised trial. The UK Medical Research Council recommends process evaluation of complex interventions to provide insight into why they work or fail and how they might be improved. This study aimed to evaluate processes underpinning implementation of the intervention and explore end-users' perceptions of it, in order to give a deeper understanding of its effects. METHODS: A pre-specified, mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted as an adjunct to the main trial, guided by a framework for process evaluation of cluster-randomised trials. Data was collected across eight Australian hospitals but mainly focused on the four intervention hospitals. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected across the evaluation domains: recruitment, reach, intervention delivery and response to intervention, at both cluster and individual patient level. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: In the context of the main trial, which found a 42% reduction in risk of pressure ulcer with the intervention that was not significant after adjusting for clustering and covariates, this process evaluation provides important insights. Recruitment and reach among clusters and individuals was high, indicating that patients, nurses and hospitals are willing to engage with a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle. Of 799 intervention patients in the trial, 96.7% received the intervention, which took under 10 min to deliver. Patients and nurses accepted the care bundle, recognising benefits to it and describing how it enabled participation in pressure ulcer prevention (PUP) care. CONCLUSIONS: This process evaluation found no major failures relating to implementation of the intervention. The care bundle was found to be easy to understand and deliver, and it reached a large proportion of the target population and was found to be acceptable to patients and nurses; therefore, it may be an effective way of engaging patients in their pressure ulcer prevention care and promoting evidence-based practise.
Language eng
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0547-2
Field of Research 111099 Nursing not elsewhere classified
11 Medical And Health Sciences
08 Information And Computing Sciences
Socio Economic Objective 970111 Expanding Knowledge in the Medical and Health Sciences
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2017, The Authors
Free to Read? Yes
Use Rights Creative Commons Attribution licence
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30092859

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: School of Nursing and Midwifery
Open Access Collection
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 7 Abstract Views, 6 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Mon, 03 Apr 2017, 15:44:33 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.