PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Angela Phillips

Publications and source records attributed to Angela Phillips.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Randomised, controlled trial of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers: PRESSURE (pressure relieving support surfaces) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare whether differences exist between alternating pressure overlays and alternating pressure mattresses in the development of new pressure ulcers, healing of existing pressure ulcers, and patient acceptability. DESIGN: Pragmatic, open, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 11 hospitals in six NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: 1972 people admitted to hospital as acute or elective patients. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to an alternating pressure mattress (n = 982) or an alternating pressure overlay (n = 990). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer of grade 2 or worse; time to development of new pressure ulcers; proportions of participants developing a new ulcer within 30 days; healing of existing pressure ulcers; and patient acceptability. RESULTS: Intention to treat analysis found no difference in the proportions of participants developing a new pressure ulcer of grade 2 or worse (10.7% overlay patients, 10.3% mattress patients; difference 0.4%, 95% confidence interval--2.3% to 3.1%, P = 0.75). More overlay patients requested change owing to dissatisfaction (23.3%) than mattress patients (18.9%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: No difference was found between alternating pressure mattresses and alternating pressure overlays in the proportion of people who develop a pressure ulcer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 78646179.

Adult↗

Pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial: cost effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers in patients admitted to hospital. DESIGN: Cost effectiveness analysis carried out alongside the pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial; a multicentre UK based pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 11 hospitals in six UK NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Intention to treat population comprising 1971 participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Kaplan Meier estimates of restricted mean time to development of pressure ulcers and total costs for treatment in hospital. RESULTS: Alternating pressure mattresses were associated with lower overall costs (283.6 pounds sterling per patient on average, 95% confidence interval--377.59 pounds sterling to 976.79 pounds sterling) mainly due to reduced length of stay in hospital, and greater benefits (a delay in time to ulceration of 10.64 days on average,--24.40 to 3.09). The differences in health benefits and total costs for hospital stay between alternating pressure mattresses and alternating pressure overlays were not statistically significant; however, a cost effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that on average alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays were associated with an 80% probability of being cost saving. CONCLUSION: Alternating pressure mattresses for the prevention of pressure ulcers are more likely to be cost effective and are more acceptable to patients than alternating pressure overlays.

Adult↗

Predictive value of the pretreatment extent of disease system in hepatoblastoma: results from the International Society of Pediatric Oncology Liver Tumor Study Group SIOPEL-1 study.

PURPOSE: Preoperative staging (pretreatment extent of disease [PRETEXT]) was developed for the first prospective liver tumor study by the International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOPEL-1 study; preoperative chemotherapy and delayed surgery). Study aims were to analyze the accuracy and interobserver agreement of PRETEXT and to compare the predictive impact of three currently used staging systems. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Hepatoblastoma (HB) patients younger than 16 years who underwent surgical resection (128 of 154 patients) were analyzed. The centrally reviewed preoperative staging was compared with postoperative pathology (accuracy) in 91 patients (81%), and the local center staging was compared with the central review (interobserver agreement) in 97 patients (86%), using the agreement beyond change method (weighted kappa). The predictive values of the three staging systems were compared in 110 patients (97%) using survival curves and Cox proportional hazard ratio estimates. RESULTS: Preoperative PRETEXT staging compared with pathology was correct in 51%, overstaged in 37%, and understaged in 12% of patients (weighted kappa = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.62). The weighted kappa value of the interobserver agreement was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.88). The Children's Cancer Study Group/Pediatric Oncology Group-based staging system showed no predictive value for survival (P = .516), but the tumor-node-metastasis-based system and PRETEXT system showed good predictive values (P = .0021 and P = .0006, respectively). PRETEXT seemed to be superior in the statistical fit. CONCLUSION: PRETEXT has moderate accuracy with a tendency to overstage patients, shows good interobserver agreement (reproducibility), shows superior predictive value for survival, offers the opportunity to monitor the effect of preoperative therapy, and can also be applied in patients who have not had operations. For comparability reasons, we recommend that all HB patients included in trials also be staged according to PRETEXT.

Child↗

Reliability of pressure ulcer classification and diagnosis.

AIM: To assess the inter-rater reliability of the PRESSURE Trial pressure ulcer diagnosis (>/=Grade 2) and skin classification for all grades between the clinical research nurse (CRN) team leader and CRNs working across different hospital sites; and CRNs and ward-based nurses. BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom National Health Service Health Technology Assessment Programme has funded a multi-centre, randomized controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternating pressure mattress overlays and mattress replacements - PRESSURE Trial. Outcome skin assessments were recorded by qualified ward-based nurses daily, and expert CRNs twice weekly. METHOD: Paired assessments were undertaken and skin assessed on seven body sites. The per cent agreement between nurses in the diagnosis of a pressure ulcer was determined and the Kappa statistic and confidence intervals calculated. Per cent agreement between nurses in classifying skin for all grades was also determined. RESULTS: Assessments were undertaken by 378 pairs: 16 paired patient assessments (107 site comparisons) by the CRN team leader and CRNs, and 362 paired patient assessments (2396 site comparisons) between CRNs and ward-based nurses. There was 100% agreement between the CRN team leader and CRNs in the diagnosis of a pressure ulcer, and the Kappa statistics indicated 'very good' agreement. There were only two (1.9%) disagreements in classifying skin for all grades between these nurses. The agreement in the diagnosis of a pressure ulcer between CRNs and ward-based nurses varied by skin site, ranging from 93.6% to 100%, with the Kappa statistics indicating 'good' and 'very good' agreement. However, there were 508 (21.2%) disagreements in classifying skin for all grades. CONCLUSIONS: Overall agreement and Kappa statistics indicated 'very good' and 'good' agreement between expert nurses, and between expert nurses and qualified ward-based staff, respectively. However, the high prevalence of normal skin concealed clinically important disagreements in both the diagnosis of pressure ulcers and skin classification for all grades.

Buttocks↗

A nurse-led randomised trial of pressure-relieving support surfaces.

A nurse-led trial is currently collecting data comparing interventions for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. The aim is to provide reliable guidance on the relative merits of alternating-pressure mattresses and overlays for people at moderate to high risk of pressure ulceration. This paper outlines the main objectives, methodology and progress of the study.

Beds↗