4 JCN
2014,Vol 28, No 5 (supplement)
equipment and were excluded
from the evaluation. Patients who
were unable to tolerate dynamic
alternating pressure and whose
body mass index (BMI) exceeded
the safe weight range of the
mattress were also excluded and
a suitable alternative product was
provided. Local organisational
policies and guidelines were
observed and adhered to regarding
the assessment and management
of patients considered at risk of, or
with pressure damage.
Method
The motivation for carrying out
the evaluation was to support the
organisation in managing clinical
risk by selecting clinically-effective
pressure-relieving equipment, in
collaboration with an appropriate
commercial partner. To gather
appropriate information a data
collection tool was developed
by the local consultant nurse for
tissue viability, together with the
ward managers and the tissue
viability team, to capture relevant
study parameters from multiple
clinical perspectives (Boynton and
Greenhalgh, 2004).
This tool was able to elicit
feedback on products and services,
and determine the experience and
knowledge of participants (Boynton
and Greenhalgh, 2004). Information
gathered included generic data
relating to the patient and staff
members’experience of using the
mattress, and evaluation of the service
received from the mattress supplier,
Shelden Healthcare Ltd (
Table 1
).
The pilot evaluation conducted on 20
patients was to determine the efficacy
of this data collection tool (Holford,
2013), with results indicating that no
changes were required, and so the
Table 1:
Information gathered in the data collection tool
Evaluation — part 1:
Age, gender, weight, height
Diagnosis
Equipment used before (if any)
Waterlow score
Category and location of pressure ulcer
Continence status
Mobility and time spent in bed
Pressure relief when seated, including ability to
reposition independently
Evaluation — part 2:
Weight (if changed)
Any change in general condition
Duration of use of equipment
Waterlow score
Category and location of pressure ulcer
Experience of using the mattress
Reported by the patient:
Comfort
Noise level
Reported by staff:
Ease of patient getting in and out of bed
independently or assisted
Ease of day-to-day cleaning
Service received from the mattress supplier
Reported by the staff:
Politeness and courteousness of supplier staff
Whether appropriate information/instructions were left by the engineer
Ease of contacting the supplier
Responsiveness to reported faults or issues
Training delivery
same method was replicated for the
following 80 patients.
Following admission to the ward,
patients were comprehensively
assessed by a registered nurse
and, where suitable, recruited
into the evaluation and part one
of the data collection tool was
completed (
Table 1
). Part two of
the evaluation was carried out on
the day the patient discontinued
using the mattress, with the reason
being noted. In addition, baseline
data was reassessed and additional
information collected to capture any
significant changes in the patient’s
general health condition, their
experience of using the mattress
and the duration that the device
was in use.
The evaluation requested
each patient to rate the level of
comfort of the mattress as either
very or fairly comfortable, or
uncomfortable. Ease of getting on
and off the mattress was assessed
in comparison to the previous
mattress used. In addition, the
nurse caring for the patient also
reported on questions relating to
the ease of cleaning the mattress
and the customer service given by
the mattress supplier (
Table 1
).
Full training was given to ward
staff before the pilot evaluation and
again during the full roll-out across
the three community hospital wards.
Training included the full use of the
mattress, its features and benefits,
and processes regarding deliveries
and collections by the commercial
supplier. A telephone helpline was
made available for any enquiries
needing an immediate response.
Findings
Participants
A total of 100 patients were
recruited in the evaluation; of
these, two patients died during
their admission so their data were
excluded from analysis. Participants
included 40 male and 58 female
patients. Data analysis was based
only on those cases where all
analysed values were present
(which explains the variability of
n).
Table 2
shows the mean ages,
Table 2:
Participants’ age, weight and Waterlow scores on admission
(n excludes any missing values)
Age
Waterlow score
Weight (kg)
Mean (SD)
n
Mean (SD)
n
Mean (SD)
n
Females
83
(12)
58
18
(4)
57
63.78
(17)
57
Males
81
(9)
40
18
(4)
38
79.41
(31)
34
Total
82
(11)
98
18
(4)
95
69.62
(24)
91
JCN Supplement
