K Herberger1, K Heyer2, K Protz2, A Mayer2, J Dissemond3, S Debus4, T Wild5, J Schmitt6, M Augustin2. 1. Competenzzentrum Versorgungsforschung in der Dermatologie (CVderm), Institut für Versorgungsforschung in der Dermatologie und bei Pflegeberufen (IVDP), Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland. k.herberger@uke.de. 2. Competenzzentrum Versorgungsforschung in der Dermatologie (CVderm), Institut für Versorgungsforschung in der Dermatologie und bei Pflegeberufen (IVDP), Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland. 3. Klinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Deutschland. 4. Klinik für Gefäßmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Deutschland. 5. Wound Consulting GmbH, Wien, Österreich. 6. Zentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der TU Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standards in the assessment and documentation of disease processes are the basis of guideline-based care. For the treatment of chronic wounds, especially leg ulcers, no approved parameters are available. OBJECTIVES: Against this background, our aim was to develop standards for the documentation of leg ulcer in routine care. This article presents the recommendations for the classification and characteristics of the variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The development of the documentation standard was based on a systematic literature research and was performed in a Delphi-based consensus process. The national consensus process included meetings as well as web-based questionnaires. The Consensus Group is coordinated by the German Center for Health Services Research in Dermatology (CVderm). RESULTS: The documentation standards and their variables for leg ulcer routine care were developed in seven meetings of the consensus group. The consensus group consists of 38 delegates of wound care societies, health insurances, wound networks and associations. DISCUSSION: For each variable, recommended in routine care, a distinct response scheme (defined set of variable characteristics) was defined. As a next step, a structured implementation process is required, which was part of the resolutions of the consensus group.
BACKGROUND: Standards in the assessment and documentation of disease processes are the basis of guideline-based care. For the treatment of chronic wounds, especially leg ulcers, no approved parameters are available. OBJECTIVES: Against this background, our aim was to develop standards for the documentation of leg ulcer in routine care. This article presents the recommendations for the classification and characteristics of the variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The development of the documentation standard was based on a systematic literature research and was performed in a Delphi-based consensus process. The national consensus process included meetings as well as web-based questionnaires. The Consensus Group is coordinated by the German Center for Health Services Research in Dermatology (CVderm). RESULTS: The documentation standards and their variables for leg ulcer routine care were developed in seven meetings of the consensus group. The consensus group consists of 38 delegates of wound care societies, health insurances, wound networks and associations. DISCUSSION: For each variable, recommended in routine care, a distinct response scheme (defined set of variable characteristics) was defined. As a next step, a structured implementation process is required, which was part of the resolutions of the consensus group.
Authors: Matthias Augustin; Stephan Jeff Rustenbach; Sebastian Debus; Lena Grams; Karl-Christian Münter; Wolfgang Tigges; Elmar Schäfer; Katharina Herberger Journal: Dermatology Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 5.366
Authors: K Herberger; S J Rustenbach; L Grams; K C Münter; E Schäfer; M Augustin Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2011-05-14 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: N Kirsten; K Herberger; M Augustin; W Tigges; C Behrendt; F Heidemann; E S Debus; H Diener Journal: Chirurg Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 0.955