The use of a dedicated tool to assess peripheral oedema in patients
Research type
Research Study
Full title
The use of a dedicated tool to assess peripheral oedema in patients with heart failure – a feasibility study to assess the acceptability and usability of the tool
IRAS ID
239358
Contact name
Sarah Briggs
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 3 months, 31 days
Research summary
Decompensation of heart failure is punctuated throughout a patient’s heart failure journey, and is manifested by peripheral, ascitic and/or pulmonary fluid overload. Oedema causes a reduction in mobility, increase in fatigue and worsening quality of life.
In Rotherham there are currently over 2000 patients registered with heart failure. This figure has not varied significantly over the last 5 years. There is understood to be a large underestimate of heart failure diagnosis, supported by the Heart of England Screening study and many patients anecdotally tell me that they have languished at home for months with peripheral oedema, before they are finally diagnosed with heart failure.
Despite this, there is a lack of definition for oedema and no national oedema classification system and as a result, oedema is reported either minimally, incorrectly or subjectively.
The study will allow us to review accuracy of feedback by comparing current individual oedema assessment methods to that of a designed standard Oedema Assessment Tool; P.O.R.T (Peripheral Oedema Rotherham’s Tool). The assessment tool will have a grading system in relation to categorizing the severity of the Oedema. We will look to see the similarities of feedback between to the two assessments by nursing staff, clinicians and patients compared to individual assessment methods. We will review the feedback to see if the designed standard Oedema Assessment Tool assessment method using the tool improves accuracy and consistency of assessment.I also would like patients to self assess themselves using the tool to see if that is consistent with the clinicians assessment.REC name
North West - Haydock Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
18/NW/0398
Date of REC Opinion
18 Jun 2018
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion