INTRODUCTION: Wound-healing outcomes applying standardized protocols have typically been measured within controlled clinical trials, not natural settings. Standardized protocols of wound care have been validated for clinical use, creating an opportunity to measure the resulting outcomes. PURPOSE: Wound-healing outcomes were explored during clinical use of standardized validated protocols of care based on patient and wound assessments. DESIGN: This was a prospective multicenter study of wound-healing outcomes management in real-world clinical practice. METHOD: Healing outcomes from March 26 to October 31, 2001, were recorded on patients in 3 long-term care facilities, 1 long-term acute care hospital, and 12 home care agencies for wounds selected by staff to receive care based on computer-generated validated wound care algorithms. After diagnosis, wound dimensions and status were assessed using a tool adapted from the Pressure Sore Status Toolfor use on all wounds. Wound, ostomy, and continence nursing professionals accessed consistent protocols of care, via telemedicine in home care or paper forms in long-term care. A physician entered assessments into a desktop computer in the wound clinic. Based on evidence that healing proceeds faster with fewer infections in environments without gauze, the protocols generally avoided gauze dressings. RESULTS: Most of the 767 wounds selected to receive the standardized-protocols of care were stage III-IV pressure ulcers (n = 373; mean healing time 62 days) or full-thickness venous ulcers (n = 124; mean healing time 57 days). Partial-thickness wounds healed faster than same-etiology full-thickness wounds. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide benchmarks for natural-setting healing outcomes and help to define and address wound care challenges. Outcomes primarily using nongauze protocols of care matched or surpassed best previously published results on similar wounds using gauze-based protocols of care, including protocols applying gauze impregnated with growth factors or other agents.
INTRODUCTION: Wound-healing outcomes applying standardized protocols have typically been measured within controlled clinical trials, not natural settings. Standardized protocols of wound care have been validated for clinical use, creating an opportunity to measure the resulting outcomes. PURPOSE: Wound-healing outcomes were explored during clinical use of standardized validated protocols of care based on patient and wound assessments. DESIGN: This was a prospective multicenter study of wound-healing outcomes management in real-world clinical practice. METHOD: Healing outcomes from March 26 to October 31, 2001, were recorded on patients in 3 long-term care facilities, 1 long-term acute care hospital, and 12 home care agencies for wounds selected by staff to receive care based on computer-generated validated wound care algorithms. After diagnosis, wound dimensions and status were assessed using a tool adapted from the Pressure Sore Status Toolfor use on all wounds. Wound, ostomy, and continence nursing professionals accessed consistent protocols of care, via telemedicine in home care or paper forms in long-term care. A physician entered assessments into a desktop computer in the wound clinic. Based on evidence that healing proceeds faster with fewer infections in environments without gauze, the protocols generally avoided gauze dressings. RESULTS: Most of the 767 wounds selected to receive the standardized-protocols of care were stage III-IV pressure ulcers (n = 373; mean healing time 62 days) or full-thickness venous ulcers (n = 124; mean healing time 57 days). Partial-thickness wounds healed faster than same-etiology full-thickness wounds. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide benchmarks for natural-setting healing outcomes and help to define and address wound care challenges. Outcomes primarily using nongauze protocols of care matched or surpassed best previously published results on similar wounds using gauze-based protocols of care, including protocols applying gauze impregnated with growth factors or other agents.
Authors: Patriek Mistiaen; Andre Ament; Anneke L Francke; Wilco Achterberg; Ruud Halfens; Janneke Huizinga; Henri Post Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Boas J Wijker; Sonja de Groot; Johanna M van Dongen; Femke van Nassau; Jacinthe J E Adriaansen; Wendy J Achterberg-Warmer; Johan R Anema; Andries T Riedstra; Maurits W van Tulder; Thomas W J Janssen Journal: Trials Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Kamal A Qureshi; Salman A A Mohammed; Omar Khan; Hussein M Ali; Mahmoud Z El-Readi; Hamdoon A Mohammed Journal: Molecules Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 4.927
Authors: John A Hatheway; Vipul Mangal; Michael A Fishman; Philip Kim; Binit Shah; Rainer Vogel; Vincent Galan; Steven Severyn; Tristan E Weaver; David A Provenzano; Eric Chang; Michael H Verdolin; Gregory Howes; Armando Villarreal; Steven Falowski; Kelly Hendrickson; Katherine Stromberg; Lachlan Davies; Lisa Johanek; Matthew T Kelly Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2020-12-09