ArticleInternational wound journal2023
Feasibility of PURPOSE T in clinical practice and patient participation-A mixed-method study.
Article in International wound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Evaluating Pressure Ulcer Risk With PURPOSE T in Acute Care-Inter-Rater Reliability Between Registered Nurses and Assistant Nurses.International wound journal · 2026Article
- The impact of a risk assessment tool on hospital pressure injury prevalence and prevention: a quantitative pre-post evaluation.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Article
- Knowledge and attitudes regarding pressure injuries among assistant nurses in a clinical context.International wound journal · 2024Article
- Feasibility of PURPOSE T in clinical practice and patient participation-A mixed-method study.International wound journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of implementing an electronic version of PURPOSE T, a risk assessment instrument for pressure ulcers, in a Swedish hospital ward. A mixed-method was used. Nursing staff received training in PURPOSE T and a record review was performed (n = 30). PURPOSE T replaced the Modified Norton Scale, and after one month another record review was performed (n = 30). Individual interviews with patients (n = 15) and focus group interviews with nursing staff (n = 23) were performed after the implementation. The results of the record review and the focus group interviews showed good clinical feasibility of PURPOSE T. The record review showed that more patients were at risk of developing pressure ulcers and more nursing interventions were prescribed with PURPOSE T compared to the Modified Norton Scale. The focus group interviews showed that all nursing staff were satisfied with PURPOSE T. The instrument contributed to increased reflection and analysis as well as the opportunity for nursing staff to draw their own conclusions regarding patients´ risk status. The documentation encouraged the prescription of more preventive actions, and the nurses were more involved at bedside. However, almost all the patients expressed not receiving any information about pressure ulcers.
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.