6 JCN
2014,Vol 28, No 5 (supplement)
62%
28%
10%
Much easier than
previous mattress
Same as previous mattress
More difficult than
previous mattress
Distribution of responses (%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Was the company helpful/appropriate?
Did the company respond in a polite manner?
Was the company easy to contact?
Was the information/instructions left
by the engineer?
Was the engineer polite and courteous?
42
1
No
42
1
43
95
2
96
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Yes
Figure 4.
Staff members’ reports of the ease
with which patients could get in and
out of bed (n=86).
Figure 5.
Responses regarding customer service received from Shelden Healthcare Ltd.
clean a mattress on a day-to-day
basis (Callaghan, 2013), as well
as being able to identify when
full professional decontamination
is needed. In regards to the ease
of day-to-day cleaning, 28% of
respondents (n=27) reported that
this was ‘straightforward’, 71%
(n=69) reported that it was ‘very
easy’, and only 1% (n=1) found this
to be ‘quite difficult’. In addition,
Figure 4
indicates staff members’
perceptions of the ease with which
patients could get in and out of
the bed. As the focus for many
patients within the community
hospital setting is rehabilitation,
it is important that patients feel
confident and safe when getting in
and out of bed.
It was important to the
organisation that the commercial
partner was responsive and
professional; therefore, the
evaluation also included responses
from staff regarding the service
received from the mattress supplier.
For each question, the majority of
responses (over 98%) were positive
(
Figure 5
).
Discussion
Although there was a statistically
significant reduction in the number
of pressure ulcers when comparing
patients before and after their
episode on the mattress, as this was
not a comparison evaluation, it is
unknown whether similar results
may have been obtained if another
JCN Supplement
measures such as the size or images
of the ulcers were not captured. As
grading was used, the study would
have benefitted from the ulcers
being independently categorised
by at least two clinicians rather
than depending on one, in order to
minimise bias (Cullum et al, 2000).
However, the patient and staff
feedback showed a very positive
assessment of the mattress and the
service provided by the commercial
supplier. Other benefits include
cost of the products, design of the
cable management system, and
high level of training support, all of
which contribute positively to the
evaluation of the product.
sion
Conducting a pilot study gave
the team confidence to use the data
collection tool, which was designed
to establish clinical-effectiveness and
capture patient experience of the
product. It is important that patients
have positive healthcare experiences
with prevention strategies, that also
promote comfort and independence
where possible (Moore and
Cowman, 2009). Implementation of
a care plan to prevent and manage
pressure damage should always
remain patient-centred (Moore and
Cowman, 2009). As a result of the
overwhelming positive feedback
received in the pilot study, it was
decided to recruit a further 80
patients to the evaluation.
In the authors’ clinical experience,
products are often chosen as a result
‘Implementation of a care
plan to prevent and manage
pressure damage should
always remain patient-centred’
type of mattress was used. It was
decided by the service manager
to evaluate this particular type of
mattress because of the advantages
they and their team had experienced
with it, yet further evaluation
should compare the results of this
equipment with other dynamic
pressure-relieving mattresses.
In addition, although there was
a statistically significant correlation
between time on the mattress
and reduction in the number of
pressure ulcers, this does not
indicate a direction of causation.
Other ratings such as comfort were
devised by the service, so future
work would benefit from using or
creating validated measures where
possible. In further scrutinising
measurement, the reduction of
tissue loss (or that overall pressure
ulcers did not deteriorate) was used
as an indicator of the efficacy of
the mattress, however the difficulty
with grading ulcers, particularly
category 1 ulcers, is acknowledged
(Cullum et al, 2000). More objective
