- Introduction Pressure injuries are a common and significant concern in clinical practice, often serving as a vital quality indicator. While (clinical) practice guidelines have been established to offer recommendations for mitigating hospital-acquired pressure injuries, adherence among stakeholders remains inconsistent. The subjective perceptions of stakeholders, such as patients and nurses, may impede adherence to pressure ulcer prevention guidelines, potentially reducing the effectiveness of these interventions. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to comprehensively understand this influence. Therefore, this review aims to offer a broader understanding of how the perspectives of patients and nurses engaged in pressure injury prevention affect the effectiveness of specific interventions for pressure ulcer management.
Methods and analysis We will conduct a convergent, segregated mixed-methods systematic review and perform a narrative synthesis with a focus on evidenceIntroduction Pressure injuries are a common and significant concern in clinical practice, often serving as a vital quality indicator. While (clinical) practice guidelines have been established to offer recommendations for mitigating hospital-acquired pressure injuries, adherence among stakeholders remains inconsistent. The subjective perceptions of stakeholders, such as patients and nurses, may impede adherence to pressure ulcer prevention guidelines, potentially reducing the effectiveness of these interventions. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to comprehensively understand this influence. Therefore, this review aims to offer a broader understanding of how the perspectives of patients and nurses engaged in pressure injury prevention affect the effectiveness of specific interventions for pressure ulcer management.
Methods and analysis We will conduct a convergent, segregated mixed-methods systematic review and perform a narrative synthesis with a focus on evidence of the effectiveness of pressure injury prevention strategies and patient and nurse perceptions. Our search will encompass several databases, including the 'Centre for Reviews and Dissemination' (CRD) Database, Medline (via Ovid), CINAHL (via Ebsco) and Scopus (via Elsevier). Additionally, we will cross-check reference lists from all included systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full texts and extract data from the included studies. The quality of methodology of systematic reviews will be assessed using 'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2' (AMSTAR 2) and the risk of bias using 'Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews' (ROBIS). Qualitative studies will undergo critical appraisal using appropriate Joanna Briggs checklists. If it is feasible to pool data from included studies, we will synthesise them accordingly, using meta-analysis for quantitative reviews and meta-aggregation for qualitative studies. The results from both qualitative and quantitative analyses will be compared with derive new recommendations for healthcare practice aimed at enhancing the quality of care.
Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required due to the nature of this intended review. The results of this review will be disseminated through publications, reports and conference presentations.…
CC-BY-NC 4.0: Creative Commons: Namensnennung - Nicht kommerziell (mit Print on Demand)