EHealth Application: Research Critique and Ethical Considerations

Background of Study

The problem of the study completed by Moore et al. (2015) was that a systematic evaluation of studies on how technologies could help practitioners treat pressure ulcers and provide patients with required education. Significance of the current study is highlighted by the idea that the researchers were able to collect evidence on the utilization of eHealth applications and define the future areas of research that could be investigated. The purpose of Moore et al. ‘s (2015) article was to address the aspects that were not completely assessed within the framework of previous research projects. The objective, on the other hand, was to test the integral elements of care provision and make sure that eHealth apps could benefit the process of pressure ulcers treatment. Moore et al. (2015) took on the research question of whether existing knowledge and skills could be useful in developing the best approaches to treating pressure ulcers with the help of available technologies.

The research problem outlined in Ousey et al.’s (2016) project was to investigate a gap in the literature related to how assisted living could relieve the burdens of pressure ulcers in adult populations. The overall significance of this study may be explained by an extensive insight into the importance of reporting and understanding the needs of patients. The purpose of the research was to communicate with care provision staff to find out if a national education program could be helpful in disseminating pressure ulcer-related information (Ousey et al., 2016). The objective, on the other hand, related to the development of professional skills in care providers. The research question investigated by Ousey et al. (2016) touched upon the quality of life of patients with pressure ulcers and how the financial burden of educating patients could be reduced with the help of instruction and guidance.

The nurse practice issue of repositioning is supported by both articles because eHealth and patient education function simultaneously when it comes to developing the most efficient treatment process and appeal to patients of all ages, socioeconomic backgrounds, etc. (Moore & Cowman, 2015). Wound management is a serious issue that also has to be addressed by practitioners because technical development offers more possibilities to improve clinical practice and engage eHealth appropriately (Black et al., 2015). Existing protocols suggest that care clinicians should invest more resources in technology-related research and consider the benefits of bed repositioning and patient education (Boyko et al., 2018). The thoughtful deployment of digital applications, together with detailed instructions for both providers and patients, would significantly improve the quality of life for patients and the quality of care for nurses. There are numerous potential opportunities related to how improvements could be achieved with the help of optimal treatment, and articles completed by Moore et al. (2015) and Ousey et al. (2016) carefully outline them.

PICOT and Intervention

In the process of answering the PICOT question, the two articles mentioned above would be useful because of the extended amount of evidence on how eHealth applications and engaging training sessions could lead to improved practitioner and patient satisfaction (in addition to better-quality health outcomes). These qualitative research articles serve as proof of the fact that primary expectations within organizations should revolve around patients’ health outcomes and their ability to participate in the treatment process (Moore et al., 2015; Ousey et al., 2016). Bed repositioning protocols are important, but the value of guidance and technology should not be underestimated given to the existing shift to community care. Improved interdisciplinary teamwork should be expected to create even more benefits for patients with pressure ulcers and their care providers.

The interventions from the articles are relatively close to the ones listed in the PICOT question because of the similar organizational effects characteristic of repositioning protocols and patient education. Nevertheless, the staff should be trained first to adapt the proposed methods adequately and make sure that the team recognizes the value of technology and is willing to address pressure ulcers in patients irrespective of their attitudes toward the health issue (Moore et al., 2015; Ousey et al., 2016). Existing resources always support their most efficient use and require care providers to come up with treatment plans that actually consider the patient situation.

Method of Study

The study completed by Moore et al. (2015) mostly focused on the crucial items that could be helpful in outlining the potential use of eHealth applications. The researchers conducted a literature review aimed at a comprehensive evaluation of the Model for Assessment of Telemedicine (MAST) framework and redefine the potential values characteristic of digital tools in care provision. Moore et al. (2015) identified the most valuable literature on the subject and developed a clear argument on the process of wound care. The benefit of this research project is that it allows the readers to realize the advantages of eHealth solutions and their place within modern care environments. The key limitation of this research is that Moore et al. (2015) failed to address the process of integrating eHealth into the process of care provision. A sole focus on the potential influence of eHealth tools on patients with pressure ulcers may not be deemed as overly effective.

Ousey et al. (2016), on the other hand, conducted their study utilizing a sample of care providers who were asked to provide their feedback on existing protocols and the use of technologies in care provision. The participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire where they would discuss their experiences related to the treatment of pressure ulcers and potential improvements that could facilitate the relationship with patients. The main benefit of Ousey et al.’s (2016) article is that it maximized the role of community nurses and outlined pressure ulcer care as one of the essential ideas in nursing that are interconnected with pain management, wound care, and other areas of health services. Regardless, the essential limitation of the current research article was that it did not allow for a high level of data clustering and did not reach the same level of representativeness as Moore et al.’s (2015) research project, for example.

Results of Study

The results of the study completed by Moore et al. (2015) showed that the amount of evidence related to the application of eHealth tools is still limited and has to be expanded over time. The benefits and harms to patients characteristic of digital care instruments yet have to be researched in order to help providers evade wound care challenges and build positive relationships with patients. One of the potential solutions could be to pay more attention to the recurrent evaluation of technologies and support the innovation approach. The implication of these findings is that any given organization could benefit from such activities in the case where both the team and patients are ready to contribute to positive change.

The research conducted by Ousey et al. (2016) highlights the need for more community nursing initiatives and the importance of being able to share information with patients and receive timely updates from them as well. They suggested that changes made to the existing reporting mechanisms could become the one and only solution for patients with pressure ulcers. Every nursing professional should be concerned with evaluating existing protocols and making sure that vulnerable adults are not exposed to even more additional challenges. The key implication of these findings is that the lack of guidance could negatively affect patients with pressure ulcers and reduce the effectiveness of repositioning protocol.

Ethical Considerations

The first ethical consideration was to preserve the anonymity of all participants that were involved in the process of data collection. Moore et al. (2015) addressed it by removing all personal data from their database that could be used to identify a study participant. The relevance of preserving anonymity may be explained by the large demographic variation and multiple cultural aspects that could affect study outcomes. In order to address the ethical consideration of preserving anonymity, Moore et al. (2015) only collected the data related to pressure ulcer treatment and outcomes, without focusing on personal information.

The second ethical consideration is the utilization of special equipment and techniques that may be best identified in Ousey et al.’s (2016) article. After ethical approval, the researchers conducted a survey via the Internet and then deleted all the raw data after the survey had been completed. Every interview recorded during the study was then transcribed with the help of the University of Huddersfield and sent to a secure server to protect study participants from sensitive data disclosure.


Black, J., Alves, P., Brindle, C. T., Dealey, C., Santamaria, N., Call, E., & Clark, M. (2015). Use of wound dressings to enhance prevention of pressure ulcers caused by medical devices. International Wound Journal, 12(3), 322-327.

Boyko, T. V., Longaker, M. T., & Yang, G. P. (2018). Review of the current management of pressure ulcers. Advances in Wound Care, 7(2), 57-67.

Moore, Z., Angel, D., Bjerregaard, J., O’Connor, T., McGuiness, W., Kröger, K.,… & Yderstrœde, K. B. (2015). eHealth in wound care: From conception to implementation. Journal of Wound Care, 24(Sup5), S1-S44.

Moore, Z. E., & Cowman, S. (2015). Repositioning for treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1), 1-17.

Ousey, K., Kaye, V., McCormick, K., & Stephenson, J. (2016). Investigating staff knowledge of safeguarding and pressure ulcers in care homes. Journal of Wound Care, 25(1), 5-11.

Rafter, L. (2016). Employing e-health in the palliative care setting to manage pressure ulcers. Wounds UK, 12(1), 114-123.

Cite this paper

Select style


NursingBird. (2022, January 16). EHealth Application: Research Critique and Ethical Considerations. Retrieved from


NursingBird. (2022, January 16). EHealth Application: Research Critique and Ethical Considerations.

Work Cited

"EHealth Application: Research Critique and Ethical Considerations." NursingBird, 16 Jan. 2022,


NursingBird. (2022) 'EHealth Application: Research Critique and Ethical Considerations'. 16 January.


NursingBird. 2022. "EHealth Application: Research Critique and Ethical Considerations." January 16, 2022.

1. NursingBird. "EHealth Application: Research Critique and Ethical Considerations." January 16, 2022.


NursingBird. "EHealth Application: Research Critique and Ethical Considerations." January 16, 2022.