Abstract
AIM: To understand, from a nursing perspective, factors affecting the use of prophylactic dressings to prevent pressure injuries in acute hospitalised adults. BACKGROUND: Pressure injury causes harm to patients and incurs significant costs to health services. Significant emphasis is placed on their prevention. Relatively recently, prophylactic dressings have been promoted to reduce pressure injury development. However, in the acute care setting, information about the clinical use of these dressing is lacking. DESIGN: Qualitative, descriptive. METHODS: Nineteen medical and surgical nurses participated. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was performed using an inductive approach using NVivo software. RESULTS: Three themes were identified, reflecting factors that influenced and perpetuated indiscriminate use of prophylactic dressings: False sense of security; Convenience and task prioritisation; and Navigating challenges in evidence-based pressure injury prevention. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate inconsistent prevention practices, with prophylactic dressings often applied without justification or referral to research-based evidence to guide clinical decision-making. There was a prevailing attitude of 'job done' when a prophylactic dressing was applied. IMPACT: This study has identified several factors that perpetuate the inappropriate use of prophylactic dressings for pressure injury prevention that may be amenable to organisational change. The findings indicate that nurses often rely on these dressings as a shortcut due to time constraints, which led to missed skin assessments and low-value care. The research can be used to inform the development of clear guidelines on dressings within hospital settings which encourage assessment-based selection for their use, and process-based guidance for their application, skin surveillance, dressing inspection and removal. REPORTING METHOD: The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) reporting guideline was followed. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Neither patients nor the public were directly involved in this study.