Understanding methods of wound debridement

Autolytic debridement describes the body's natural method of wound-bed cleansing, helping it to prepare the wound bed for healing. In acute wounds, autolytic debridement occurs automatically and often does not require intervention, as during the inflammatory stage of a wound, neutrophils and macrophages digest and removes devitalised tissue, cell debris and contaminants, clearing the wound of any cellular barriers to healing. In chronic wounds, by contrast, healing is often delayed, frequently because of inadequate debridement. The autolytic process becomes overwhelmed by high levels of endotoxins released from damaged tissue (Broadus, 2013). Therefore wound debridement becomes an integral part of chronic-wound management and practitioners involved in wound care must be fully competent at wound-bed assessment and have an awareness of the options available for debridement. This article will review wound-bed assessment, highlighting variations in devitalised tissue, and explore options available for wound debridement, taking into consideration patients’ pain and quality of life

EPUAP classification system for pressure ulcers: European reliability study

‘The definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com .' Copyright Blackwell PublishingPeer reviewe

Diagnoses and clinical features associated with high risk for unplanned readmission in vascular surgery. A cohort study

Background: Readmission rate is an established health quality indicator. Preventable readmissions bear an unnecessary, high cost on the healthcare system. An analysis performed by the National Centre for Health Outcomes Development (NCHOD) has demonstrated an increasing trend in emergency readmissions in the UK. Vascular surgery has been reported to have high readmission rates second only to congestive heart failure. This study aims to identify diagnoses and other clinical risk factors for high unplanned readmission rates. This may be the first step to sparing both the health care system and patients of unnecessary readmissions. Results: The overall 30 day readmission rate for Leeds Vascular Institute was 8.8%. The two diagnoses with the highest readmission rates were lower limb ischaemia and diabetic foot sepsis. The readmission rate for medical reasons was overwhelmingly higher than for surgical reasons (6.5% and 2.3% respectively). The most common medical diagnoses were renal disease and COPD. The majority of the patients readmitted under the care of vascular surgery required further surgical treatment. Conclusion: Vascular units should focus on holistic and multidisciplinary treatment of lower limb ischaemia and diabetic foot sepsis, in order to prevent readmissions. Furthermore, the early involvement and input of physicians in the treatment of vascular patients with renal disease and COPD may be appropriate

Prophylactic dressing to minimize sacral pressure injuries in high-risk hospitalized patients: A pilot study

Aim: In this paper, we describe a trial protocol used to assess feasibility related to: study administration (recruitment, randomization, retention, compliance, eligibility criteria, suitability of protocol instructions and data collection questionnaires); resource and data management (suitability of site, time and budget allocation, management of personnel and data); intervention fidelity (treatment dose, violations); and effect size. Background: Pressure injury can lead to increases in hospital length of stay and cost. The sacrum is identified as one of the most common anatomical pressure injury sites for hospitalized patients. Silicone foam border dressings have been proposed as one strategy to reduce pressure injury incidence; however, rigorous testing of benefit in a general medical-surgical population is required. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Methods: Eighty patients will be recruited after assessment of high risk of pressure injury in a large tertiary hospital in south-east Queensland, Australia. Eligible, consenting participants will be randomly allocated to either a control group (routine care) or an intervention group (routine care and a sacral prophylactic dressing). The primary outcomes comprise feasibility criteria as identified above. The secondary measure is the presence and severity of sacral pressure injury via blind assessment of digital photographs. Research ethics approval was received in October 2013. Discussion: Prophylactic dressings applied to the sacrum may be an effective method for reducing pressure injury in high-risk general medical-surgical patients. However, more rigorous studies to confirm benefit are required. This pilot study will determine the feasibility and effect size to inform a larger randomized controlled trial

A pilot randomised controlled trial using prophylactic dressings to minimise sacral pressure injuries in high risk hospitalised patients

This pilot randomised controlled trial examined the effect of prophylactic dressings to minimise sacral pressure injuries in high-risk hospitalised patients and assessed feasibility criteria to inform a larger study. Eighty patients were recruited at admission points (the Emergency Department and Surgical Care Unit) or directly from participating wards in the general medical surgical setting following assessment of high risk for sacral pressure injury. Participants were randomised into either the routine care or routine care and silicone foam border dressing group. Outcome assessment comprised digital photographs of each participant’s sacrum every 72 hours for evaluation by a blind-to-intervention assessor. Sixty-seven participants had at least one sacral photograph taken and assessed by a blind-to-intervention assessor. Three participants were assessed as having a Stage I pressure injury. While the use of photography was effective, feasibility criteria identified challenges related to bias, blinding, weight assessment, preparation of nursing staff and sample size estimation

Antibiotics and antiseptics for pressure ulcers

Background: Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. A range of treatments with antimicrobial properties, including impregnated dressings, are widely used in the treatment of pressure ulcers. A clear and current overview is required to facilitate decision making regarding use of antiseptic or antibiotic therapies in the treatment of pressure ulcers. This review is one of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the use of antiseptics and antibiotics in different types of wounds. It also forms part of a suite of reviews investigating the use of different types of dressings and topical treatments in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Objectives: To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics, and topical antiseptics on the healing of infected and uninfected pressure ulcers being treated in any clinical setting. Search methods: In October 2015 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid EMBASE, and EBSCOCINAHL Plus.We also searched three clinical trials registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials which enrolled adults with pressure ulcers of stage II or above were included in the review. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Main results: We included 12 trials (576 participants); 11 had two arms and one had three arms. All assessed topical agents, none looked at systemic antibiotics. The included trials assessed the following antimicrobial agents: povidone iodine, cadexomer iodine, gentian violet, lysozyme, silver dressings, honey, pine resin, polyhexanide, silver sulfadiazine, and nitrofurazone with ethoxy-diaminoacridine. Comparators included a range of other dressings and ointments without antimicrobial properties and alternative antimicrobials. Each comparison had only one trial, participant numbers were low and follow-up times short. The evidence varied from moderate to very low quality. Six trials reported the primary outcome of wound healing. All except one compared an antiseptic with a non-antimicrobial comparator. There was some moderate and low quality evidence that fewer ulcers may heal in the short term when treated with povidone iodine compared with non-antimicrobial alternatives (protease-modulating dressings (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.98) and hydrogel (RR 0.64, 95%CI 0.43 to 0.97)); and no clear difference between povidone iodine and a third non-antimicrobial treatment (hydrocolloid) (low quality evidence). Pine resin salve may heal more pressure ulcers than hydrocolloid (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.05) (low quality evidence). There is no clear difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care, and between honey a combined antiseptic and antibiotic treatment (very low quality evidence). Six trials reported adverse events (primary safety outcome). Four reported no adverse events; there was very low quality evidence from one showing no clear evidence of a difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care; in one trial it was not clear whether data were appropriately reported. There was limited reporting of secondary outcomes. The five trials that reported change in wound size as a continuous outcome did not report any clear evidence favouring any particular antiseptic/anti-microbial treatments. For bacterial resistance, one trial found some evidence of more MRSA eradication in participants with ulcer treated with a polyhexanide dressing compared with a polyhexanideswab (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.13); patients in the dressing group also reported less pain (MD −2.03, 95% CI −2.66 to −1.40). There was no clear evidence of a difference between interventions in infection resolution in three other comparisons. Evidence for secondary outcomes varied from moderate to very low quality; where no GRADE assessment was possible we identified substantial limitations which an assessment would have taken into account. Authors’ conclusions: The relative effects of systemic and topical antimicrobial treatments on pressure ulcers are not clear. Where differences in wound healing were found, these sometimes favoured the comparator treatment without antimicrobial properties. The trials are small, clinically heterogenous, generally of short duration, and at high or unclear risk of bias. The quality of the evidence ranges from moderate to very low; evidence on all comparisons was subject to some limitations

Groin wound infection after vascular exposure (GIVE) multicentre cohort study

Surgical site infections (SSIs) of groin wounds are a common and potentially preventable cause of morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs in vascular surgery. Our aim was to define the contemporaneous rate of groin SSIs, determine clinical sequelae, and identify risk factors for SSI. An international multicentre prospective observational cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing groin incision for femoral vessel access in vascular surgery was undertaken over 3 months, follow-up was 90 days. The primary outcome was the incidence of groin wound SSI. 1337 groin incisions (1039 patients) from 37 centres were included. 115 groin incisions (8.6%) developed SSI, of which 62 (4.6%) were superficial. Patients who developed an SSI had a significantly longer length of hospital stay (6 versus 5 days, P = .005), a significantly higher rate of post-operative acute kidney injury (19.6% versus 11.7%, P = .018), with no significant difference in 90-day mortality. Female sex, Body mass index≥30 kg/m2, ischaemic heart disease, aqueous betadine skin preparation, bypass/patch use (vein, xenograft, or prosthetic), and increased operative time were independent predictors of SSI. Groin infections, which are clinically apparent to the treating vascular unit, are frequent and their development carries significant clinical sequelae. Risk factors include modifiable and non-modifiable variables

Consensus guidelines for the identification and treatment of biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds

Background: Despite a growing consensus that biofilms contribute to a delay in the healing of chronic wounds, conflicting evidence pertaining to their identification and management can lead to uncertainty regarding treatment. This, in part, has been driven by reliance on in vitro data or animal models, which may not directly correlate to clinical evidence on the importance of biofilms. Limited data presented in human studies have further contributed to the uncertainty. Guidelines for care of chronic wounds with a focus on biofilms are needed to help aid the identification and management of biofilms, providing a clinical focus to support clinicians in improving patient care through evidence-based medicine. Methods: A Global Wound Biofilm Expert Panel, comprising 10 clinicians and researchers with expertise in laboratory and clinical aspects of biofilms, was identified and convened. A modified Delphi process, based on published scientific data and expert opinion, was used to develop consensus statements that could help identify and treat biofilms as part of the management of chronic nonhealing wounds. Using an electronic survey, panel members rated their agreement with statements about biofilm identification and treatment, and the management of chronic nonhealing wounds. Final consensus statements were agreed on in a face-to-face meeting. Results: Participants reached consensus on 61 statements in the following topic areas: understanding biofilms and the problems they cause clinicians; current diagnostic options; clinical indicators of biofilms; future options for diagnostic tests; treatment strategies; mechanical debridement; topical antiseptics; screening antibiofilm agents; and levels of evidence when choosing antibiofilm treatments. Conclusion: This consensus document attempts to clarify misunderstandings about the role of biofilms in clinical practice, and provides a basis for clinicians to recognize biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds and manage patients optimally. A new paradigm for wound care, based on a stepped-down treatment approach, was derived from the consensus statements

The Professional Portfolio: An Evidence-Based Assessment Method

Competency assessment is critical for a myriad of disciplines, including medicine, law, education, and nursing. Many nurse managers and educators are responsible for nursing competency assessment, and assessment results are often used for annual reviews, promotions, and satisfying accrediting agencies\u27 requirements. Credentialing bodies continually seek methods to measure and document the continuing competence of licensees or certificants. Many methods and frameworks for continued competency assessment exist. The portfolio process is one method to validate personal and professional accomplishments in an interactive, multidimensional manner. This article illustrates how portfolios can be used to assess competence. One specialty nursing certification board\u27s process of creating an evidence-based portfolio for recertification or reactivation of a credential is used as an example. The theoretical background, development process, implementation, and future implications may serve as a template for other organizations in developing their own portfolio models