Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Smith, Isabelle L.; Nixon, Jane; Brown, Sarah; Wilson, Lyn; Coleman, Susanne (2016)
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Journal: Journal of Tissue Viability
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Dermatology, Pathology and Forensic Medicine
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 PUs: The 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 PUs: The 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% to 60.4%) and unweighted specificity of 98.3% (95%CI 97.7% to 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.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] Shojania KG, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. Temporal trends in patient safety in the Netherlands: reductions in preventable adverse events or the end of adverse events as a useful metric? BMJ Qual Saf 2015 [online first].
    • [2] Baines R, Langelaan M, de Bruijne M, Spreeuwenberg P, Wagner C. How effective are patient safety initiatives? A retrospective patient record review study of changes to patient safety over time. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24(9): 561e71.
    • [3] Vincent C, Amalberti R. Safety in healthcare is a moving target. BMJ Qual Saf 2015 [online first].
    • [4] Baines RJ, Langelaan M, de Bruijne MC, Asscheman H, Spreeuwenberg P, van de Steeg L, et al. Changes in adverse event rates in hospitals over time: a longitudinal retrospective patient record review study. BMJ Qual Saf 2013; 22(4):290e8.
    • [5] Shojania KG, Thomas EJ. Trends in adverse events over time: why are we not improving? BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22(4): 273e7.
    • [6] Landrigan CP, Parry GJ, Bones CB, Hackbarth AD, Goldmann DA, Sharek PJ. Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. N Engl J Med 2010; 363(22):2124e34.
    • [7] Tanner J, Padley W, Kiernan M, Leaper D, Norrie P, Baggott R. A benchmark too far: findings from a national survey of surgical site infection surveillance. J Hosp Infect 2013;83(2):87e91.
    • [8] NHS-England. Understanding the new NHS. London: N. E. Medical Directorate; 2014.
    • [9] DH. An organisation with a memory. DH. Norwich: Stationary Office; 2000.
    • [10] DH, Building a safer NHS for patients: implementing an organisation with a memory, DH. London: Department of Health.
    • [11] NPSA. Seven steps to patient safety: full reference guide. NPSA. London: NPSA; 2004.
    • [12] DH. The NHS outcomes framework 2011/12. DH. London: Department of Health; 2010.
    • [13] DH. Using the commissioning for quality and Innovation (CQUIN) payment framework for the NHS England. 2008. DH, London.
    • [14] DH. Delivering the NHS safety thermometer CQUIN 2012/ 13; a preliminary guide to delivering 'Harm Free' care. Q. S. C. Team. London: Department of Health; 2012.
    • [15] HSCIC. NHS safety thermometer: annual publication, patient harms and harm free care Engalnd. April 2012eMarch 2014, official statisitics. H. a. S. C. I. Centre. HSCIC; 2014.
    • [16] NHS-England. Serious incident framework. N. E. P. S. Domain, London. 2015.
    • [17] Observatories, N.Q. Quality Observatories, http://www. qualityobservatory.nhs.uk/ [accessed July 2015].
    • [18] Datix. Datix: software for patient safety. 2015. http:// www.datix.co.uk/ [accessed 22.06.15]. Retrieved 22/06/ 2015.
    • [19] Ulysses. Ulysses safeguard healthcare. 2015. http://www. ulysses.co.uk/safeguard-healthcare/ [accessed 22.06.15]. Retrieved 22/06/2015.
    • [20] Dealey C, Chambers T, Beldon P, Benbow M, Fletcher J, Fumarola S, et al. Achieving consensus in pressure ulcer reporting. J Tissue Viability 2012;21(3):72e83.
    • [21] TVS. Pressure ulcer prevalence monitoring and interpretation of safety thermometer data a briefing paper for commissioners and NHS trusts. 2013. http://tvs.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2013/05/TVS_PU_Prevalence_ Measurement_Safety_Thermometer_Data_ Interpretation1.pdf.
    • [22] Coleman S, Smith IL, Nixon J, Wilson L, Brown S. Pressure ulcer and wounds reporting in NHS hospitals in England part 2: survey of monitoring systems. J Tissue Viability 2016;25(1):16e25.
    • [23] NPUAP/EPUAP. Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers:clinical practice guideline. Washington DC: National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel; 2009.
    • [24] Zhou XH, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2011.
    • [25] Begg CB, Greenes RA. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics 1983;39(1):207e15.
    • [26] Briggs M, Collinson M, Wilson L, Rivers C, McGinnis E, Dealey C, et al. The prevalence of pain at pressure areas and pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients. BMC Nurs 2013;12(1): 19. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6955/12/19.
    • [27] Zegers M, de Bruijne MC, Wagner C, Hoonhout LH, Waaijman R, Smits M, et al. Adverse events and potentially preventable deaths in Dutch hospitals: results of a retrospective patient record review study. Qual Saf Health Care 2009;18(4):297e302.
    • [28] Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, Blais R, Brown A, Cox J, et al. The Canadian adverse events study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ 2004;170(11):1678e86.
    • [29] Davis P, Lay-Yee R, Briant R, Ali W, Scott A, Schug S. Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals I: occurrence and impact. N Z Med J 2002;115(1167):U271.
    • [30] Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ 2001;322(7285):517e9.
    • [31] Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Burstin HR, Orav EJ, Zeena T, Williams EJ, et al. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000; 38(3):261e71.
    • [32] Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 1991;324(6):370e6.
    • [33] Wyatt JC. The new NHS information strategy. 2012.
    • [34] Cook JA, Collins GS. The rise of big clinical databases. Br J Surg 2015;102(2):E93e101.
    • [35] DH. The power of information: putting all of us in control of the health and care information we need. D. o. Health. 2012.
    • [36] Nixon J, Thorpe H, Barrow H, Phillips A, Andrea Nelson E, Mason SA, et al. Reliability of pressure ulcer classification and diagnosis. J Adv Nurs 2005;50(6):613e23.
    • [37] Pinkney L, Nixon J, Wilson L, Coleman S, McGinnis E, Stubbs N, et al. Why do patients develop severe pressure ulcers? A retrospective case study. BMJ Open 2014; 4(1). http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/1/e004303. full.pdf.
    • [38] Black JM, Cuddigan JE, Walko MA, Didier LA, Lander MJ, Kelpe MR. Medical device related pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients. Int Wound J 2010;7(5):358e65.
    • [39] NICE. Pressure ulcer prevention: the prevention and management of pressure ulcers in primary and secondary care, Clinical Guideline 179, Methods, evidence and recommendations. National Clinical Guideline Centre; 2014.
    • [40] Collinson M. PURPOSE prevalence statisical report: final analysis in the acute trust. CTRU, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds; 2013.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article