Using PURPOSE-T in clinical practice: A realist evaluation

Aim To explain how the clinical and organisational context influenced the way the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE-T) is used by nursing staff to support their clinical judgement and decision making about care planning and delivery. Methods A realist process evaluation was undertaken in a large acute hospital trust using mixed methods incorporating organisational policy review, staff semi-structured, ethnographic observation of clinical care and patient record review. Approximately 75 h of ethnographic field work involving 72 patients, 15 patient record reviews and 16 staff interviews were undertaken on 4 wards. Findings Findings suggest PURPOSE-T assisted nurses differently depending on their level of experience. Those with less experience use it as an educational guide, while those with more experience made an initial clinical judgement and used PURPOSE-T as a safety net to ensure they hadn't missed anything. Nurses were concerned about demonstrating good documentation of assessment, care planning and delivery in order to underpin consistent communication about care and because they had an underlying fear of being blamed if things went wrong. There is an array of other contextual features that impact the planning and delivery of pressure area care that go beyond the use of PURPOSE-T alone, including systematic equipment provision, competing patient safety initiatives and rehabilitation requirements. Conclusion The findings reinforce the assertion that PU-RAIs are complex interventions and could inform the development of a more integrated system of care which takes into account the contextual features associated with PU prevention in modern hospitals.