Tobiano G, Campbell J, Allen G, Coyer F, Gillespie BM, Moore Z, Nowicki T, Walker RM, Chaboyer W, et al.
Journal of advanced nursing. Date of publication 2023 Aug 1;volume 79(8):2992-3001.
1. J Adv Nurs. 2023 Aug;79(8):2992-3001. doi: 10.1111/jan.15630. Epub 2023 Mar 9.
End-user perceptions of sub-epidermal moisture scanning (SEMS) acceptability: A
descriptive qualitative study.
Tobiano G(1)(2), Campbell J(1), Allen G(3), Coyer F(4)(5)(6), Gillespie
BM(1)(2), Moore Z(7)(8)(9), Nowicki T(10), Walker RM(11)(12), Chaboyer W(1).
Author information:
(1)Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute
Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
(2)Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Health, Gold Coast, Queensland,
Australia.
(3)Office for Research, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
(4)School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
(5)School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia.
(6)Intensive Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Metro North
Health, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
(7)School of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland,
University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
(8)School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Life and Health Sciences, Ulster
University, Newtownabbey, UK.
(9)Skin Wounds and Trauma (SWaT) Research Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in
Ireland, University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
(10)The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, Queensland, Australia.
(11)School of Nursing and Midwifery, Menzies Health Institute, Griffith
University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
(12)Division of Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland,
Australia.
AIMS: To assess patients' and nurses' perceptions and experiences of
subepidermal moisture scanning acceptability.
DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative, sub-study, embedded within a pilot randomized
control trial.
METHODS: Ten patients who were in the intervention arm of the pilot trial and 10
registered nurses providing care for these patients on medical-surgical units
participated in individual semi-structured interviews. Data were collected from
October 2021 to January 2022. Interviews were analysed using inductive
qualitative content analysis, and perspectives (patient and nurse), were
triangulated.
RESULTS: Four categories were found. The first category 'Subepidermal moisture
scanning is acceptable as part of care' showed that patients and nurses were
willing to use subepidermal moisture scanning and viewed subepidermal moisture
scanning as non-burdensome. The category 'Subepidermal moisture scanning may
improve pressure injury outcomes' demonstrated that although subepidermal
moisture scanning was believed to prevent pressure injuries, more research
evidence about its benefits was required. 'Subepidermal moisture scanning
augments existing pressure injury prevention practices', the third category,
highlighted that subepidermal moisture scanning aligns with current pressure
injury prevention practices while making these practices more patient-centred.
In the final category, 'Important considerations when making subepidermal
moisture scanning routine practice', practical issues were raised relating to
training, guidelines, infection control, device availability and patient
modesty.
CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that using subepidermal moisture scanning is
acceptable for patients and nurses. Building the evidence base for subepidermal
moisture scanning and then addressing practical issues prior to implementation,
are important next steps. Our research suggests that subepidermal moisture
scanning enhances individualized and patient-centred care, persuasive reasons to
continue investigating subepidermal moisture scanning.
IMPACT: For an intervention to be successfully implemented it must be both
effective and acceptable, however, there is limited evidence of patients' and
nurses' views of SEMS acceptability. SEM scanners are acceptable to use in
practice for patients and nurses. There are many procedural aspects that need to
be considered when using SEMS such as frequency of measurements. This research
may have benefit for patients, as SEMS may promote a more individualized and
patient-centred approach to pressure injury prevention. Further, these findings
can assist researchers, providing justification to proceed with effectiveness
research.
PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A consumer advisor was involved in study design,
interpretation of data and preparation of manuscript.
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Advanced Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.
DOI: 10.1111/jan.15630
PMID: 36895070 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
