The aim of this study was to explore why patients with hard-to-heal ulcers are treated without an aetiological diagnosis, using a grounded theory approach.

The study employed a qualitative semistructured interview design to gain in-depth insights. Data were collected in 2024, and an explanatory model was formed in accordance with grounded theory analysis.

Interviews were conducted with healthcare staff across primary, community and specialist care units in Sweden, encompassing both public and private sectors and representing a wide geographical spread.

The study involved 23 healthcare professionals, including nurses (n=18), assistant nurses (n=2) and physicians (n=3), from 22 healthcare units that participated in a preceding national mapping study. Participants were selected purposively to represent various professional roles and healthcare levels.

The analysis resulted in a theoretical model based on two categories: Healthcare traditions and clinical practices and Clinical governance. The lack of an aetiological diagnosis can be attributed to a traditional division of tasks, where ulcer care falls within the nurses’ domain. As a result, patients often receive treatment without a physician’s involvement, especially in home healthcare. Barriers and enablers for a diagnosis are present on different levels; issues close to the patient as well as structural matters. The results illustrate how healthcare units can be positioned along a scale, from traditional work distribution to evidence-based guidelines.

This study can be used to get a deeper understanding of the challenges of current wound management, where clinical governance can support or undermine the movement from a traditional work distribution towards an evidence-based clinical practice. Furthermore, this study can provide a basis for discussing quality improvement, to obtain good and equal care for patients with hard-to-heal ulcers.

Ages of attainment for early gross motor milestones have been widely studied, but definitions and measurement methods have varied greatly. Since delays in motor milestones have been used extensively as one of the earliest indicators of atypical development, it is imperative to establish a universal understanding of the methods and results reported on motor milestones in typically developing children. Therefore, the primary aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of recent studies reporting ages of onset for independent sitting and walking in typically developing children worldwide; this will be achieved by summarising how these milestones have been operationalised and evaluated, the samples from whom these data have been drawn, and the reported ages of acquisition.

To meet inclusion criteria, articles must: be original research papers published in any language since 2003, contain a sample of typically developing children and report actual ages of onset for independent sitting and/or walking. To conduct this scoping review, the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework will be used. Search terms will include variations of the following concepts: acquisition of motor milestone (independent sitting and/or walking), age of onset, infancy. Six databases (CINAHL Plus, Embase, PsycNet: PsycINFO & PsycArticles, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science: Core Collection) will be searched. Records from these databases will be screened for eligibility. Two people will independently review each record during title and abstract screening, and three people will independently screen full texts and extract data. Results will be displayed in tables, graphs and narrative summaries in the scoping review.

As the review will only include previously published data, ethics approval is not required. Findings will be shared at scientific conferences and in a peer-reviewed journal.