Pressure ulcer management in Oman: nurses’ knowledge and views

Background: Pressure ulcers (PrUs) have a significant impact on health system expenditure and patient’s quality of life. It is a global problem. Many studies were undertaken in regard to PrU prevention and management. In Oman, no studies have been conducted to investigate nurses’ knowledge on prevention and management of PrUs. The purpose of this descriptive sequential explanatory mixed-method study was to explore the nurses’ level of knowledge in relation to prevention and management of PrUs in Oman. Methods: A mixed method design was used and the study was conducted over two Phases. In Phase I, a questionnaire was developed to explore nurses’ knowledge on PrU, policy, and resources. The main section of the questionnaire was the Pieper-Zulkowski Pressure Ulcer knowledge test (PZ-PUKT) which tests the knowledge on PrU. Another two sections were developed including questions about wound policy and resources available for PrU prevention and management in Oman. The questionnaire was distributed to nurses who were working in surgical, medical, orthopaedic, CCU, and ICU wards/units in seven hospitals. In Phase II study, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 of the questionnaire respondents. Interviews took approximately 30 minutes, were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data were analysed using the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice (KAP) model as the a priori framework. Results: In Phase I, 478 questionnaires were analysed. The knowledge test results showed the overall mean percent score for correctly answered questions was 51% suggesting a low level of knowledge. There was a significant relationship between nurses’ knowledge and age (P=0.001) and between knowledge and years of experience (P=0.001) with knowledge increasing with age and years of experience. In Phase II, four themes were identified from the interviews: knowledge, attitude, and practice (framework themes) and perception of role. Findings indicated positive and negative attitudes towards the care of PrUs. Some nurses stated feeling rewarded when they see wounds improving while others said they could not work with patients independently because they lacked the knowledge and the skills needed. There was variation in the management of PrU between hospitals. Both studies indicated that the wound management policy did not include enough information to guide nurses. Conclusion: Overall the nurses’ level of knowledge on PrU was relatively low. Most nurses were not familiar with wound management policy or different PrU prevention and management strategies. Nurses are aware of the risk of PrUs and try their best to manage them with the available resources however more training is required.

An examination of verbal descriptors of cancer-induced bone pain and neuropathic cancer pain

Aims: The aim of the thesis was to identify verbal descriptors of cancer induced bone pain (CIBP) and neuropathic cancer pain (NCP). An examination of the verbal descriptors associated with these two pain syndromes further considered the relationship between common verbal descriptors, cancer type, performance status and analgesia. Methods: The project was conducted in two phases; Phase one was a systematic review of the literature to examine current evidence of verbal descriptors in CIBP and NCP. Phase two utilised secondary data analysis methodology. Data from 120 patients with confirmed CIBP and 61 patients with confirmed NCP were deemed eligible for entry into a de novo database for secondary analysis. Key descriptive data were considered such as gender, ECOG and pain scores to characterise the patient population. Verbal descriptors of CIBP and NCP were considered in detail across the secondary de novo database. Results: Gender was not identified as a diagnostic characteristic of CIBP and NCP with similar distribution across prevalence of pain reporting and also pain severity. Patients with breast (n=52,43.3%), prostate (n=35,29.2%) and lung (n=14,11.7%) cancer were found to be at an increased risk of CIBP. Those with NCP more was found more commonly among patients with breast cancer (n=21,34.4%). Patients with CIBP were found to have an ECOG performance of 1 (n=49, 40.8%) or 2 (n=43, 35.8%) which was lower than those with NCP with an ECOG of 0 (n=32, 52.5%) or 2 (n=18, 29.5%). Comparisons were made across analgesia and treatment options for CIBP and NCP. Patients with CIBP received a greater variety of treatment options including bisphosphonates and radiotherapy while patients with NCP were more commonly treated with analgesia alone. Patients with CIBP and NCP were taking strong opioids, however those with NCP (n=45, 73.8%) were more likely to utilise strong opioids than those with CIBP (n=61, 50.8%). It was noted that those with NCP required a daily morphine equivalence of almost 50% higher than those with CIBP. Average consumption of opioids was 155.6mg, for patients with NCP, compared to 76mg in patients with CIBP. Common verbal descriptors of CIBP and NCP were identified. The most common verbal descriptors for CIBP were aching, gnawing and throbbing and the most common verbal descriptors of NCP were aching, tender and sharp. Of the most common 6 descriptors for CIBP and NCP only one descriptor was unique to each pain type, gnawing for CIBP and stabbing for NCP. Conclusions: Patients with CIBP and NCP use similar verbal descriptors to characterise their pain with gnawing being unique to CIBP and stabbing being unique to NCP in the data considered within project. Further research is required to explore verbal descriptors which are both common and unique to CIBP and NCP. Further exploration of verbal descriptors would assist development of a comprehensive pain assessment tool which would enhance pain assessment for nurses, clinicians and patients.