Approaches and experiences implementing remote, electronic consent at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit.

BACKGROUND: Use of electronic methods to support informed consent ('eConsent') is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK. MAIN TEXT: We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system's generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach.

How can we support research participants who stop taking part? Communications guidance developed through public-researcher collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Research study participants can stop taking part early, in various circumstances. Sometimes this experience can be stressful. Providing participants with the information they want or need when they stop could improve participants' experiences, and may benefit individual studies' objectives and research in general. A group of public contributors and researchers at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, aimed to develop a communication template and researcher guidance. This would address how to provide information sensitively around the time when participants stop or significantly reduce their level of participation. METHODS: The project lead used scoping review methods to identify relevant prior evidence and derive a list of potential information topics to communicate to participants who stop taking part. The topic list was reviewed by research professionals and public contributors before finalisation. Further public contributors were identified from a range of networks. The contributors formed a 'development group', to work on the detail of the planned resources, and a larger 'review group' to review the draft output before finalisation. The involvement was planned so that the development group could shape the direction and pace of the work. RESULTS: The literature review identified 413 relevant reports, resulting in 94 information topics. The review suggested that this issue has not been well explored previously. Some evidence suggested early-stopping participants are sometimes excluded from important communications (such as study results) without clear justification. The development group agreed early to focus on guidance with reusable examples rather than a template. We took time to explore different perspectives and made decisions by informal consensus. Review group feedback was broadly positive but highlighted the need to improve resource navigability, leading to its final online form. CONCLUSIONS: We co-developed a resource to provide support to research participants who stop taking part. A strength of this work is that several of the public contributors have direct lived experience of stopping research participation. We encourage others to review the resource and consider how they support these participants in their studies. Our work highlights the value of researchers and participants working together, including on complex and ethically challenging topics.

Participants in research sometimes stop taking part early. This can sometimes be stressful or difficult for them. Giving them information they want or need around that time could help them and the research. Public contributors and researchers worked together on this project. We wanted to help researchers get information to research participants who stop taking part. Some of the public contributors had experiences of stopping research participation early.The project lead first made a rough plan for the project, with public contributors' help. He left the plan open so the public contributors could help shape the project. The project lead searched for relevant information in published literature. This search showed there has not been much work before on how to help participants who stop taking part. He used the search results to make a list of topics that could be useful to give participants who stop taking part. He asked public contributors and researchers to review the list.Public contributors then joined one of two groups. A smaller group worked on the detail of the planned guidance. A larger group reviewed the draft guidance.The smaller group worked together to make the final guidance in six online meetings. The guidance includes example wording for others to use in their own participant communications. The reviewer group generally liked the guidance but had comments on making it easier to use. The final resource is available online and a link is in the references to this article.

Effectiveness of GRACE risk score in patients admitted to hospital with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (UKGRIS): parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of risk stratification using the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score (GRS) for patients presenting to hospital with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. DESIGN: Parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients presenting with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome to 42 hospitals in England between 9 March 2017 and 30 December 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥18 years with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. INTERVENTION: Hospitals were randomised (1:1) to patient management by standard care or according to the GRS and associated guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were use of guideline recommended management and time to the composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, new onset heart failure hospital admission, and readmission for cardiovascular event. Secondary measures included the duration of hospital stay, EQ-5D-5L (five domain, five level version of the EuroQoL index), and the composite endpoint components. RESULTS: 3050 participants (1440 GRS, 1610 standard care) were recruited in 38 UK clusters (20 GRS, 18 standard care). The mean age was 65.7 years (standard deviation 12), 69% were male, and the mean baseline GRACE scores were 119.5 (standard deviation 31.4) and 125.7 (34.4) for GRS and standard care, respectively. The uptake of guideline recommended processes was 77.3% for GRS and 75.3% for standard care (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.92, P=0.56). The time to the first composite cardiac event was not significantly improved by the GRS (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16, P=0.37). Baseline adjusted EQ-5D-5L utility at 12 months (difference -0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.04) and the duration of hospital admission within 12 months (mean 11.2 days, standard deviation 18 days v 11.8 days, 19 days) were similar for GRS and standard care. CONCLUSIONS: In adults presenting to hospital with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome, the GRS did not improve adherence to guideline recommended management or reduce cardiovascular events at 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 29731761.

Healing of ExcisionAl wounds on Lower legs by Secondary intention (HEALS) cohort study. Part 1: a multicentre prospective observational cohort study in patients without planned compression.

BACKGROUND: There is no agreed treatment pathway following excision of keratinocyte cancer (KC). Compression therapy is considered beneficial for secondary intention healing on the lower leg; however, there is a lack of supportive evidence. To plan a randomized controlled trial (RCT), suitable data are needed. We report a multicentre prospective observational cohort study in this patient population with the intention of informing a future trial design. AIM: To estimate the time to healing in wounds healing by secondary intention without planned postoperative compression, following excision of KC on the lower leg; to characterize the patient population, including factors affecting healing; and to assess the incidence of complications. METHODS: This was a multicentre prospective observational cohort study. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years with planned excision of KC on the lower leg and healing by secondary intention, an ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI) of ≥ 0.8; and written informed consent. Exclusion criteria included planned excision with primary closure, skin graft or flap; compression therapy for another indication; planned compression; inability of patient to receive, comply with or tolerate high compression; or a suspected diagnosis other than KC. RESULTS: This study recruited 58 patients from 9 secondary care dermatology clinics. In the analysis population (n = 53), mean age was 81 years (range 25-97 years), median time to healing was 81 days (95% CI 73-92) and 45 patients (84.9%) had healing of the wound at the 6-month follow-up. The healing prognostic factors were wound parameters and ABPI. Wound infections occurred in 16 participants (30.2%). Four patients (7.5%) were admitted to hospital; three because of an infection and one because of a fall. CONCLUSIONS: The collected data have informed the RCT preparation. A relatively high proportion (7.5-15%) of unhealed wounds, infection and hospital admissions demonstrate the need for clearly establishing potentially effective treatments to improve outcomes for this population.

Healing of ExcisionAl wounds on Lower legs by Secondary intention (HEALS) cohort study. Part 2: feasibility data from a multicentre prospective observational cohort study to inform a future randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Compression therapy is considered beneficial for postsurgical lower leg wound healing by secondary intention; however, there is a lack of supportive evidence. To plan a randomized controlled trial (RCT), suitable data are needed. AIM: To determine the feasibility of recruitment and estimate recruitment rate; to understand the standard postoperative wound management pathway; to determine uptake of optional additional clinic visits for healing confirmation; and to explore patient acceptability of compression bandaging and plan a future RCT. METHODS: Participant recruitment was performed from secondary care dermatology clinics, during a period of 22 months. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, planned excision of keratinocyte cancer on the lower leg with healing by secondary intention and an ankle-brachial pressure index of ≥ 0.8. Exclusion criteria were planned primary closure/graft or flap; inability to receive, comply with or tolerate high compression; planned compression; or suspected melanoma. Patients were followed up weekly (maximum 6 months) in secondary care clinics and/or by telephone. Information was collected on healthcare resource use, unplanned compression, wound healing and an optional clinic visit to confirm healing. RESULTS: This study recruited 58 patients from 9 secondary care dermatology clinics over 22 months. Mean recruitment/centre/month was 0.8 (range 0.1-2.3). Four centres had dedicated Research Nurse support. The analysis population (n = 53) had weekly follow-up assessments. Standard care clinical contacts were: general practitioner (7 visits; 1.2%), community nurse (169; 28.5%), practice nurse visits (189; 31.8%) and dermatology clinic visits (138; 23.2%). Participants whose wounds healed (34 of 45; 75.6%) attended an optional clinic visit. CONCLUSION: Data were obtained to inform a future RCT. Recruitment rates were found to be higher in centres with dedicated research support. People would be willing to take part in a trial and attend a confirmation of healing visit.

Comparison of ALitretinoin with PUVA as the first-line treatment in patients with severe chronic HAnd eczema (ALPHA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hand eczema (HE) is one of the most common skin disorders and an important cause for morbidity and occupational disability. The 1-year prevalence of HE is estimated to be up to 10% and it is estimated that 5%-7% of those develop severe chronic HE. However, current clinical evidence is not compelling enough to guide clinical practice. In a survey among 194 UK dermatologists the most frequent first choice approaches were psoralen combined with ultraviolet A (UVA) treatment (PUVA), oral steroids and alitretinoin (AL). When asked which strategy was most efficient for long-term outcome 20% of clinicians indicated they did not know; 43% of clinicians reported AL and 30% reported PUVA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ALPHA is a multicentre, open, prospective, two-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial comparing PUVA and AL with a planned sample size re-estimation. Between 500 and 780 participants will be randomised on a 1:1 basis. The physician's global assessment (PGA) will direct treatment after randomisation, non-responders will be treated according to usual clinical practice; providing valuable pilot data on second line therapeutic approaches to inform future trials.Assessments will be conducted up to 52 weeks post randomisation. The primary outcome measure is the Hand Eczema Severity Index at 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures include modified Total Lesion Symptom Score, PGA, time to relapse, patient reported outcome measures and DNA extraction and assessment of genetic variants. A substudy on molecular inflammatory mediators will provide information on subgroup specific treatment responses. Photographs will be taken and HE severity assessed by a central review panel. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from Leeds West Research Ethics Committee (14/YH/1259).Trial results will be disseminated at relevant clinical conferences and societies, published in peer-reviewed journals and through relevant patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN80206075.

Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): using photography for blinded central endpoint review.

BACKGROUND: PRESSURE 2 is a randomised evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two types of mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers (PUs). The primary clinical endpoint was time to development of a category ≥2 PU. The current 'gold standard' for PU identification is expert clinical assessment. Due to the mattress appearance, a blinded assessment of the endpoint is not possible. This poses a risk to the internal validity of the study. A possible approach is to use photographs of skin sites, with central blinded review. However, there are practical and scientific concerns including patients' consent to photographs, burden of data collection, photograph quality, data completeness and comparison of photographs to the current 'gold standard'. This paper reports the findings of the PRESSURE 2 photographic validation sub-study. METHOD: Where consent was obtained, photographs were taken of all category ≥2 PUs on the first presentation to assess over-reporting, and for the assessment of under-reporting, a random sample of 10% patients had an assessment by an independent clinical assessor who also photographed two skin sites. The staff were trained in taking and transferring photographs using standardised procedures and equipment. A card included in the photograph recorded participant details and a 'greyscale' for correction of white balance during processing. Three blinded reviewers assessed the photographs and rated how confident they were in their assessment. RESULTS: The trial recruited 2029 patients; 85% consented to photography, and 532 photographs were received and used in the blinded central review. The level of confidence varied by skin classification with more confidence observed when the skin was assessed as being less severe than a category ≥2 PU. Overall, there was a very good reliability compared to the gold standard expert clinical assessment (87.8%, kappa 0.82). CONCLUSION: Study findings have usefully informed the scientific and practical issues of blinded assessment of PU status to reducing the risk of bias in medical device trials. The reliability of central blinded expert photography was found to be 'very good' (PABAK). Photographs have been found to be an acceptable method of data validation for participants. Methods to improve the quality of photographs would increase the confidence in the assessments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN01151335 . Registered on 19 April 2013.

Multiple Interventions for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Treatment Trial (MIDFUT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes affects more than 425 million people worldwide with a lifetime risk of diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) of up to 25%. Management includes wound debridement, wound dressings, offloading, treatment of infection and ischaemia, optimising glycaemic control; use of advanced adjuvant therapies is limited by high cost and lack of robust evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, seamless phase II/III, open, parallel group, multi-arm multi-stage randomised controlled trial in patients with a hard-to-heal DFU, with blinded outcome assessment. A maximum of 447 participants will be randomised (245 participants in phase II and 202 participants in phase III). The phase II primary objective will determine the efficacy of treatment strategies including hydrosurgical debridement ± decellularised dermal allograft, or the combination with negative pressure wound therapy, as an adjunct to treatment as usual (TAU), compared with TAU alone, with patients randomised in a 1:1:1:2 allocation. The outcome is achieving at least 50% reduction in index ulcer area at 4 weeks post randomisation.The phase III primary objective will determine whether one treatment strategy, continued from phase II, reduces time to healing of the index ulcer compared with TAU alone, with participants randomised in a 1:1 allocation. Secondary objectives will compare healing status of the index ulcer, infection rate, reulceration, quality of life, cost-effectiveness and incidence of adverse events over 52 weeks post randomisation. Phase II and phase III primary endpoint analysis will be conducted using a mixed-effects logistic regression model and Cox proportional hazards regression, respectively. A within-trial economic evaluation will be undertaken; the primary economic analysis will be a cost-utility analysis presenting ICERs for each treatment strategy in rank order of effectiveness, with effects expressed as quality-adjusted life years.The trial has predefined progression criteria for the selection of one treatment strategy into phase III based on efficacy, safety and costs at 4 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee Yorkshire and The Humber - Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee; approved 26 April 2017; (REC reference: 17/YH/0055). There is planned publication of a monograph in National Institute for Health Research journals and main trial results and associated papers in high-impact peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN64926597; registered on 6 June 2017.

Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces for Pressure Ulcer Prevention (PRESSURE 2): Clinical and Health Economic Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are complications of serious acute/chronic illness. Specialist mattresses used for prevention lack high quality effectiveness evidence. We aimed to compare clinical and cost effectiveness of 2 mattress types. METHODS: Multicentre, Phase III, open, prospective, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in 42 UK secondary/community in-patient facilities.2029 high risk (acutely ill, bedfast/chairfast and/or Category 1 PU/pain at PU site) adult in-patients were randomised (1:1, allocation concealment, minimisation with random element) factors including: centre, PU status, facility and consent type. Interventions were alternating pressure mattresses (APMs) or high specification foam (HSF) for maximum treatment phase 60 days. Primary outcome was time to development of new PU Category ≥ 2 from randomisation to 30 day post-treatment follow-up in intention-to treat population. Trial registration: ISRCTN 01151335. FINDINGS: Between August 2013 and November 2016, we randomised 2029 patients (1016 APMs: 1013 HSF) who developed 160(7.9%) PUs. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between groups for time to new PU Category ≥ 2 Fine and Gray Model Hazard Ratio HR = 0.76, 95%CI0.56-1.04); exact P = 0.0890; absolute difference 2%). There was a statistically significant difference in the treatment phase time to event sensitivity analysis, Fine and Gray model HR = 0.66, 95%CI, 0.46-0.93; exact P = 0.0176); 2.6% absolute difference). Economic analyses indicate that APM are cost-effective.There were no safety concerns. INTERPRETATION: In high risk (acutely ill, bedfast/chairfast/Category 1 PU/ pain on a PU site) in-patients, we found insufficient evidence of a difference in time to PU development at 30-day final follow-up, which may be related to a low event rate affecting trial power. APMs conferred a small treatment phase benefit. Patient preference, low PU incidence and small group differences suggests the need for improved targeting of APMs with decision making informed by patient preference/comfort/rehabilitation needs and the presence of potentially modifiable risk factors such as being completely immobile, nutritional deficits, lacking capacity and/or altered skin/Category1 PU.

Comparing alternating pressure mattresses and high-specification foam mattresses to prevent pressure ulcers in high-risk patients: the PRESSURE 2 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a burden to patients, carers and health-care providers. Specialist mattresses minimise the intensity and duration of pressure on vulnerable skin sites in at-risk patients. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Time to developing a new PU of category ≥ 2 in patients using an alternating pressure mattress (APM) compared with a high-specification foam mattress (HSFM). DESIGN: A multicentre, Phase III, open, prospective, planned as an adaptive double-triangular group sequential, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with an a priori sample size of 2954 participants. Randomisation used minimisation (incorporating a random element). SETTING: The trial was set in 42 secondary and community inpatient facilities in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients with evidence of acute illness and at a high risk of PU development. INTERVENTIONS AND FOLLOW-UP: APM or HSFM - the treatment phase lasted a maximum of 60 days; the final 30 days were post-treatment follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to event. RESULTS: From August 2013 to November 2016, 2029 participants were randomised to receive either APM (n = 1016) or HSFM (n = 1013). Primary end point - 30-day final follow-up: of the 2029 participants in the intention-to-treat population, 160 (7.9%) developed a new PU of category ≥ 2. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between groups for time to new PU of category ≥ 2 [Fine and Gray model HR 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.04; exact p-value of 0.0890 and 2% absolute difference]. Treatment phase sensitivity analysis: 132 (6.5%) participants developed a new PU of category ≥ 2 between randomisation and end of treatment phase. There was a statistically significant difference in the treatment phase time-to-event sensitivity analysis (Fine and Gray model HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.93; p = 0.0176 and 2.6% absolute difference). Secondary end points - 30-day final follow-up: new PUs of category ≥ 1 developed in 350 (17.2%) participants, with no evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development, (Fine and Gray model HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; p-value = 0.0733 and absolute difference 3.1%). New PUs of category ≥ 3 developed in 32 (1.6%) participants with insufficient evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development (Fine and Gray model HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.62; p = 0.5530 and absolute difference 0.4%). Of the 145 pre-existing PUs of category 2, 89 (61.4%) healed - there was insufficient evidence of a difference in time to healing (Fine and Gray model HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.68; p = 0.6122 and absolute difference 2.9%). Health economics - the within-trial and long-term analysis showed APM to be cost-effective compared with HSFM; however, the difference in costs models are small and the quality-adjusted life-year gains are very small. There were no safety concerns. Blinded photography substudy - the reliability of central blinded review compared with clinical assessment for PUs of category ≥ 2 was 'very good' (kappa statistic 0.82, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa 0.82). Quality-of-life substudy - the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life - Prevention (PU-QoL-P) instrument meets the established criteria for reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. LIMITATIONS: A lower than anticipated event rate. CONCLUSIONS: In acutely ill inpatients who are bedfast/chairfast and/or have a category 1 PU and/or localised skin pain, APMs confer a small treatment phase benefit that is diminished over time. Overall, the APM patient compliance, very low PU incidence rate observed and small differences between mattresses indicate the need for improved indicators for targeting of APMs and individualised decision-making. Decisions should take into account skin status, patient preferences (movement ability and rehabilitation needs) and the presence of factors that may be potentially modifiable through APM allocation, including being completely immobile, having nutritional deficits, lacking capacity and/or having altered skin/category 1 PU. FUTURE WORK: Explore the relationship between mental capacity, levels of independent movement, repositioning and PU development. Explore 'what works for whom and in what circumstances'. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01151335. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are patches of damaged skin, mainly caused by sitting/lying in one position. PUs are graded based on how serious they are, ranging from red patches (category 1) through small skin breaks/blisters (category 2) to serious wounds (category 4). Special mattresses are used to help prevent PUs. This study compared alternating pressure mattresses (APMs) with high-specification foam mattresses (HSFMs), to see which is better at preventing PUs. The study included adults admitted to hospital for acute illness who were at a high risk of developing PUs. Patients were randomly allocated to HSFM or APM. Nurses checked patients' skin and recorded changes. A total of 132 patients developed at least one new PU of category ≥ 2 before the end of treatment (60 days maximum). Of these, 53 patients were allocated to the APM arm and 79 to the HSFM arm, a difference of 2.6%. This is a small but significant difference. Nurses looked at patients' skin again 30 days after the patient had stopped using a trial mattress. At this point, 160 patients had at least one new PU (of category ≥ 2). Of these, 70 patients were allocated to the APM arm and 90 to the HSFM arm, a very small difference of 2.0%. Some patients asked to change mattresses; this happened more in the APM group. This study focused on high-risk patients; however, only a small number of people developed PUs, suggesting that prevention is possible with either mattress. Results also suggest that certain groups of patients may benefit more from APMs, for example people who cannot give consent or who have skin redness. When planning prevention and choosing mattresses, professionals and patients need to consider a number of factors, such as comfort, existing PUs and people's ability to self-care. Further research is recommended to understand what sort of prevention works, for whom and in what circumstances.

Comparison of generic and disease-specific measures in their ability to detect differences in pressure ulcer clinical groups.

Patient-reported outcomes can be included as end points in pressure ulcer (PU) intervention trials to provide information to inform decision-making and improve the lives of patients. However, the challenge for researchers and clinicians is identifying and choosing an appropriate instrument for each particular application that suits their research questions and clinical context. To provide researchers and clinicians with the information needed to inform choice of patient-reported outcome measures, we compared a generic and disease-specific measures' ability to discriminate between clinical groups known to differ, and determined their responsiveness to change. We performed analyses on a subset of patients recruited to the PRESSURE 2 trial that completed the pressure ulcer quality of life instrument-prevention version (PU-QOL-P) and Short Form 12 Questionnaire (SF12) measures at baseline and 30-day posttreatment. Known-group validity and responsiveness-to-change analyses were conducted. The analysis sample consisted of 617 patients that completed both measures at baseline. Known-group validity revealed that some PU-QOL-P symptoms and function scales differentiated between people with category 2 PUs and those without PUs. A less meaningful pattern of results was observed for the SF12 scales, suggesting that the PU-QOL-P is more sensitive to differences between PU and non-PU populations. Responsiveness analysis revealed that the PU-QOL-P was more responsive in detecting disease severity than the SF12. The PU-QOL-P provides a standardized method for assessing PU-specific symptoms and functioning outcomes and is suitable for quantifying the benefits of PU interventions from the patient's perspective. Generic measures are useful for group comparisons of global quality of life domains. Choice of measure for each particular application should be determined by the purpose of the measurement and the information required.

A patient-reported pressure ulcer health-related quality of life instrument for use in prevention trials (PU-QOL-P): psychometric evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure ulcer-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments should be used to inform patient care and provide a strong evidence base for interventions aimed at preventing pressure ulcers. The aim was to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the psychometric properties of a PRO instrument designed to assess symptoms and functional outcomes in patients at high-risk of developing pressure ulcers, the PU-QOL-P instrument. METHODS: We modified the original PU-QOL instrument to be suitable for patients at high risk of pressure ulcer development based on feedback from patients, specialist nurses and PRO methodologists. The modified PU-QOL-P instrument was administered to a sub-set of patients participating in the PRESSURE 2 trial. Patients completed PU-QOL-P and SF12 instruments at baseline, weeks 1 and 3, and 30 days post-treatment. We undertook psychometric evaluation of the modified PU-QOL-P to test scale targeting, scaling assumptions, reliability, validity and responsiveness. RESULTS: The analysis sample consisted of 617 patients that completed both instruments at baseline. We found that the PU-QOL-P instrument, consisting of nine PU-specific outcomes: three symptom and six function scales, meets established criteria for reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness. Internal consistency reliability was high with all scale Cronbach alpha > 0.795 (range 0.795-0.970). The factor analysis mostly supported the six-function scale structure. Scaling assumptions were satisfied; all item-total correlations above 0.30. Convergent validity was confirmed by significant correlations between hypothesized scales as expected. PU-QOL-P scales were responsive to change: mean scale scores from baseline to 30 days post-treatment were statistically significant for all scales apart the daily activities scale (effect sizes ranged from moderate to high). As expected, worse symptoms and functioning was observed in patients who had a category 1 or 2 PU compared to patients who did not have a PU. CONCLUSIONS: The PU-QOL-P provides a standardised method for assessing pressure ulcer-specific symptoms and functional outcomes for quantifying the benefits of associated interventions from the patient's perspective. It can be used in research with adults at risk of pressure ulcer development in all UK healthcare settings.

Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2) photographic validation sub-study: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: PRESSURE 2 is a randomised evaluation of the clinical and cost effectiveness of two types of pressure relieving mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers. The primary endpoint is the time to development of a Category ≥2 pressure ulcer. The current 'gold standard' for the identification of a Category ≥2 pressure ulcer is expert clinical assessment. Due to the appearance of the bed, it is not possible to achieve blinding of the endpoint. This therefore poses a risk to the internal validity of the study. A possible approach is to use photographs of skin sites, with central blinded review. However, there are practical and scientific concerns including whether patients would agree to photographs; the burden of data collection; the quality of photographs; the completeness of data; and how the use of photographs compares with the current 'gold standard'. This validation sub-study aims to assess and quantify potential bias in the reporting of the trial endpoint. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients will be specifically asked to consent to photographs being taken of their skin sites. Photographs will be taken at first observation or when patients develop a new Category ≥2 pressure ulcer (to assess over-reporting). A 10% random sample of patients will be identified for additional photographs of two skin sites (one torso and one limb) with and without a pressure ulcer (if present) by an independent assessor (to assess the potential for under-reporting). Staff will be trained to take photographs using a standardised camera and photographic technique. A 'grey scale' will be included in the photo to correct white balance. Photographs will be securely transferred for central review. Photographs will have white balance corrected, and the computer monitor will be calibrated prior to review. Analysis will include assessment of under- and over-reporting, acceptability of photography to patients, secure transfer of data, quality of and confidence in blinded photograph review and sensitivity analysis using photograph assessment of primary outcome. DISCUSSION: This study will use photographs to contribute to the primary outcome of the trial. It will inform our understanding of the acceptability of photography for prevention trials and the possibility of other uses of photographic data in clinical work and research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN01151335 . Registered on 14 May 2013.

Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers represent a major burden to patients, carers and the healthcare system, affecting approximately 1 in 17 hospital and 1 in 20 community patients. They impact greatly on an individual's functional status and health-related quality of life. The mainstay of pressure ulcer prevention practice is the provision of pressure redistribution support surfaces and patient repositioning. The aim of the PRESSURE 2 study is to compare the two main mattress types utilised within the NHS: high-specification foam and alternating pressure mattresses, in the prevention of pressure ulcers. METHODS/DESIGN: PRESSURE 2 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, double triangular, group sequential, parallel group trial. A maximum of 2954 'high-risk' patients with evidence of acute illness will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either a high-specification foam mattress or alternating-pressure mattress in conjunction with an electric profiling bed frame. The primary objective of the trial is to compare mattresses in terms of the time to developing a new Category 2 or above pressure ulcer by 30 days post end of treatment phase. Secondary endpoints include time to developing new Category 1 and 3 or above pressure ulcers, time to healing of pre-existing Category 2 pressure ulcers, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, incidence of mattress change and safety. Validation objectives are to determine the responsiveness of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life-Prevention instrument and the feasibility of having a blinded endpoint assessment using photography. The trial will have a maximum of three planned analyses with unequally spaced reviews at event-driven coherent cut-points. The futility boundaries are constructed as non-binding to allow a decision for stopping early to be overruled by the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee. DISCUSSION: The double triangular, group sequential design of the PRESSURE 2 trial will provide an efficient design through the possibility of early stopping for demonstrating either superiority, inferiority of mattresses or futility of the trial. The trial optimises the potential for producing robust clinical evidence on the effectiveness of two commonly used mattresses in clinical practice earlier than in a conventional design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN01151335 . Registered on 14 May 2013. Protocol version: 5.0, dated 25 September 2015 Trial sponsor: Clare Skinner, Faculty Head of Research Support, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT; 0113 343 4897; C.E.Skinner@leeds.ac.uk.