Susanne Coleman1, E Andrea Nelson2, Peter Vowden3, Kathryn Vowden3, Una Adderley2, Lesley Sunderland4, Judy Harker5, Tracy Conroy6, Sarah Fiori7, Nicola Bezer8, Emma Holding9, Leanne Atkin10, Emma Stables11, Jo Dumville12, Sue Gavelle13, Heidi Sandoz14, Keith Moore15, Tina Chambers16, Sally Napper17, Jane Nixon18. 1. Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. Electronic address: medscole@leeds.ac.uk. 2. School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, UK. 3. Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bradford, UK. 4. Street Lane Practice, Leeds, UK. 5. Pennine Acute NHS Trust, Oldham, UK. 6. Locala Community Partnerships CIC, UK. 7. Vale of York CCG, UK. 8. Lancashire Care Foundation Trust, UK. 9. Central Cheshire Integrated Care Partnership, UK. 10. Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust, UK. 11. Leeds Wound Prevention and Management Service, UK. 12. Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, UK. 13. Combined Community and Acute Care Group, Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK. 14. Hertfordshire Community NHS Trust, Vice Chair, Tissue Viability Society, UK. 15. Bridgewater Community Healthcare Foundation Trust, UK. 16. Tina Chambers Ltd, UK. 17. NHSE North, UK. 18. Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: At present there is no established national minimum data set (MDS) for generic wound assessment in England, which has led to a lack of standardisation and variable assessment criteria being used across the country. This hampers the quality and monitoring of wound healing progress and treatment. AIM: To establish a generic wound assessment MDS to underpin clinical practice. METHOD: The project comprised 1) a literature review to provide an overview of wound assessment best practice and identify potential assessment criteria for inclusion in the MDS and 2) a structured consensus study using an adapted Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness method. This incorporated experts in the wound care field considering the evidence of a literature review and their experience to agree the assessment criteria to be included in the MDS. RESULTS: The literature review identified 24 papers that contained criteria which might be considered as part of generic wound assessment. From these papers 68 potential assessment items were identified and the expert group agreed that 37 (relating to general health information, baseline wound information, wound assessment parameters, wound symptoms and specialists) should be included in the MDS. DISCUSSION: Using a structured approach we have developed a generic wound assessment MDS to underpin wound assessment documentation and practice. It is anticipated that the MDS will facilitate a more consistent approach to generic wound assessment practice and support providers and commissioners of care to develop and re-focus services that promote improvements in wound care.
BACKGROUND: At present there is no established national minimum data set (MDS) for generic wound assessment in England, which has led to a lack of standardisation and variable assessment criteria being used across the country. This hampers the quality and monitoring of wound healing progress and treatment. AIM: To establish a generic wound assessment MDS to underpin clinical practice. METHOD: The project comprised 1) a literature review to provide an overview of wound assessment best practice and identify potential assessment criteria for inclusion in the MDS and 2) a structured consensus study using an adapted Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness method. This incorporated experts in the wound care field considering the evidence of a literature review and their experience to agree the assessment criteria to be included in the MDS. RESULTS: The literature review identified 24 papers that contained criteria which might be considered as part of generic wound assessment. From these papers 68 potential assessment items were identified and the expert group agreed that 37 (relating to general health information, baseline wound information, wound assessment parameters, wound symptoms and specialists) should be included in the MDS. DISCUSSION: Using a structured approach we have developed a generic wound assessment MDS to underpin wound assessment documentation and practice. It is anticipated that the MDS will facilitate a more consistent approach to generic wound assessment practice and support providers and commissioners of care to develop and re-focus services that promote improvements in wound care.
Authors: Sang Kyu Cho; Soeren Mattke; Hanna Gordon; Mary Sheridan; William Ennis Journal: Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 4.730