Background

The problem of hospital-acquired pressure injuries is one of the major topics for the modern healthcare sector. For this reason, the selected quantitative studies are designed with the primary goal to improve the understanding of the chosen issue and offer possible interventions to achieve improved outcomes. These are articles Pressure mapping to prevent pressure ulcers in a hospital setting: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial by Gunningberg et al. (2017) and Reduced pressure for fewer pressure ulcers: Can real‐time feedback of interface pressure optimize repositioning in bed? by Gunningberg and Carli (2016). The backgrounds of these studies are similar. Both research teams agree that pressure ulcers might precondition suffering in patients and increase costs to society (Gunningberg et al., 2017; Gunningberg & Carli, 2016). For this reason, the strategies that can help to resolve the problem and reduce the incidence acquire the top priority as the major tool to guarantee patients’ recovery and avoid the development of adverse effects in hospital settings.

Support for the Nursing Practice

The PICOT question related to the practice issue sounds in the following way:

In patients who are in hospital stay, what is the effect of continuous bedside pressure mapping on the incidence of hospital-acquired pressure injuries compared with repositioning every two hours within one year of implementation?

Analyzing the given studies, it is possible to admit that they can help to answer this question as they possess the high practical utility and the ability to improve the existing nursing practice. For instance, Gunningberg et al. (2017) state that “the study could have increased staff awareness and focus on pressure ulcer prevention” (p. 53). Considering the PICOT question, the increased effectiveness is the desired outcome, and the researchers’ findings can be utilized to improve the existing approaches and practice.

Moreover, Gunningberg and Carli (2016) assume that the constantly increasing number of preventive interventions results in the growing comfort of patients, for this reason, nurses should be provided with knowledge about these very interventions. This statement can also help to improve the situation in the sphere of pressure ulcer prevention and provide health workers with better strategies.

Method of Study

Both studies employ the qualitative approach to investigate the information available for researchers. Thus, Gunningberg and Carli (2016) use a descriptive comparative design to evaluate registered nurses’ and assistant nurses’ repositioning skills in terms of existing knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention by using the CBPM system. The given approach helps to process data from 19 registered and 33 assistant nurses and formulate appropriate results. The main benefit of the method is the ability to acquire relevant information for specialists involved in practice; however, its major drawback is the limited number of participants.

The study by Gunningberg et al. (2017) is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with the involvement of 190 patients for about nine months. Participants were divided into intervention and control groups to compare quantitative data and conclude about the effectiveness of specific interventions. The major benefit of this method is the availability of large data portions that can be used by researchers; however, there is also a drawback as results can be interpreted in different ways.

Results of Study

Gunningberg et al. (2017) conclude that “no significant difference in the prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers was shown between intervention and control groups” (p. 58). In such a way, the given article is not able to prove the positive effect of a pressure mapping system on the prevention and reduction of pressure ulcers’ incidence. At the same time, the information provided by the authors is vital for nurses to increase their awareness related to the topic and help them to function more effectively while working with patients facing the high risk of hospital-acquired injuries.

Data acquired by Gunningberg and Carli (2016) shows that the results of different interventions aimed at reducing pressure ulcers’ incidence vary between nursing pairs. It means that the use of CBPM monitors to check patients and increasing health workers’ awareness about existing methods of prevention can promote better outcomes and help patients to avoid adverse effects.

The given findings are important for nursing practice. First of all, both studies prove that awareness of specialists is a key factor that preconditions positive outcomes and should be provided increased attention. In this regard, using the results of the study, the problem of pressure ulcers can be addressed by teaching nurses how to cope with it effectively and monitoring states of clients by using additional equipment.

Outcomes Comparison

The PICOT question formulated above presupposes specific anticipated outcomes. Thus, it is believed that bedside pressure mapping can demonstrate positive shifts regarding the repositioning of patients every two hours within one year of implementation. The effectiveness of both interventions can be compared and similar concerning the reduction of incidence and negative outcomes. Additionally, anticipated outcomes presuppose that a substantial lowering in the number of hospital-acquired pressure injuries can be achieved using one of the methods mentioned above.

The results of the quantitative studies show that there is no credible evidence of the positive effect of a pressure mapping system on the reduction of incidence or prevention of pressure ulcers (Gunningberg et al., 2017). At the same time, the increased awareness levels of nurses working with patients are more important and more effective methods to improve the current situation (Gunningberg & Carli, 2016). In such a way, it is possible to conclude that the papers selected for the research are vital for the improved understanding of the topic and its further investigation.

Ethical Considerations

As any studies presupposing the involvement of human beings, both quantitative studies presuppose some ethical considerations. First of all, all participants provided informed consent for participation and could leave at any stage. Moreover, the anonymity and confidentiality of data were guaranteed to all participants as it is one of the basic demands to such studies. Finally, the researches followed the code of ethics designed to avoid violation of human rights or the emergence of ethical issues. In such a way, both researchers team follow the existing demands to the investigations, presupposing the involvement of people, and guarantee that no problems emerge.

Conclusion

Altogether, two selected quantitative studies provide meaningful information about the problem of pressure ulcers and methods that can be used to prevent their emergence in patients or reduce incidence. The results acquired by the authors help to answer the PICOT question driving the project and improve the nursing practice as there are some recommendations on how to enhance outcomes and support patients in avoiding injuries in hospital settings. Using the information provided by authors, it is possible to continue the investigation of the problem and acquire the improved vision of strategies and approaches that can be recommended to nurses in their attempts to struggle with the identified problem.