Trial reportBMC geriatrics2016
Study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of a comprehensive pressure ulcer prevention programme for private for-profit nursing homes.
Trial report in BMC geriatrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02270385 (The Effectiveness of a Pressure Ulcer), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
The Effectiveness of a Pressure Ulcer (PU) Prevention Programme for Older People in For-profit Private Nursing Homes (NHs): a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBecause the demand for government-subsidized nursing homes in Hong Kong outstrips the supply, the number of for-profit private nursing homes has been increasing rapidly. However, the standard of care in such homes is always criticized. Pressure ulcers are a major long-term care issue that is closely associated with the quality of care delivered in nursing home settings. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a pressure ulcer prevention programme for residents in private for-profit nursing homes. METHODS/
designThis is a two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial with an estimated sample size of 1088 residents and 74 care staff from eight for-profit private nursing homes. Eligible nursing homes will be those classified as category A2 homes in the Enhanced Bought Place Scheme (EBPS), having a capacity of around 130-150 beds, and no structured PU prevention protocol and/or programmes in place. Care staff will be health workers, personal care workers, and nurses who are front-line staff providing direct care to residents. Eight nursing homes will be randomly assigned to either an experimental or control group. The experimental group will be provided with an intensive training programme and will be involved in the implementation of a 16-week pressure ulcer prevention protocol, while the control group will deliver the usual pressure ulcer prevention care. The study outcomes are the pressure ulcer prevention knowledge and skills of the care staff and the prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers. Data on the knowledge and skills of care staff, and prevalence of pressure ulcer will be collected at the base line, and then at the 8(th) week and at completion of the implementation of the protocol. The assessment of the incidence of pressures will start from before the commencement of the intensive training course to the end of the implementation of the protocol. DISCUSSION: In view of the negative impact of pressure ulcers, it is important to have an effective and evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention programme to improve preventive care in private for-profit nursing homes. The programme will potentially improve the knowledge and skills of care staff on the prevention of pressure ulcers and also lead to a reduction in the development of pressure ulcers in nursing homes.
trial registrationThe Current Controlled Trial is NCT02270385, 18 October 2014.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.