Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2017 Nov 26;7(11):e016155.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016155.

Developing outcome measures assessing wound management and patient experience: a mixed methods study

Collaborators, Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Developing outcome measures assessing wound management and patient experience: a mixed methods study

Daisy Elliott et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: To develop outcome measures to assess practical management of primary surgical wounds and patient experience.

Design: Mixed methods, including qualitative interviews and data extraction from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Setting: Two university-teaching NHS hospitals and three district NHS hospitals in the South West and Midlands regions of England.

Participants: Sixty-four patients and 15 healthcare professionals from abdominal general surgical specialities and obstetrics (caesarean section).

Methods: Measures were developed according to standard guidelines to identify issues relevant to patients' experiences of surgical wounds and dressings, including analysis of existing RCT outcomes and semi-structured interviews. These were written into provisional questionnaire items for a single outcome measure. Cognitive interviews with patients and healthcare professionals assessed face validity, acceptability and relevance. Findings from interviews were regularly shared with the study team who suggested amendments to modify and reword items to improve understanding before further iterative testing with patients and healthcare professionals.

Results: Analyses of existing RCT outcomes and interviews produced a total of 69 issues. Pretesting and iterative revision established the need for two separate measures. One measure addresses healthcare professionals' experience of wound management in two key areas: exudate and its impact, and allergic reactions to the dressing. The other measure addresses patients' experience of wounds in seven key areas: wound comfort, dressing removal, dressings to protect the wound, impact on daily activities, ease of movement, anxiety about the wound and satisfaction with dressing. Each measure took less than five min to complete and both were understood and acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals.

Conclusion: This in-depth study has developed two measures to assess practical management of primary surgical wounds and patient experience. Further work to test their validity, reliability and application to other settings is now required.

Trial registration number: HTA - 12/200/04; Pre-results.

Keywords: dressings; qualitative research; questionnaire development; wounds.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD, et al. . An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data. Lancet 2008;372:139–44. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60878-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Andronis L, Blazeby J, Blencowe N, et al. . Bluebelle study (phase A): a mixed-methods feasibility study to inform an RCT of surgical wound dressing strategies. BMJ Open 2016;6:e012635 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012635 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dumville JC, Gray TA, Walter CJ, et al. . Dressings for the prevention of surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016(12). - PubMed
    1. Dumville JC, Coulthard P, Worthington HV, et al. . Tissue adhesives for closure of surgical incisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014:CD004287 10.1002/14651858.CD004287.pub4 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ta S, Smith J, Kermode J, et al. . Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Res 1990;11:256–60. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources