Emily Haesler1,2,3, Terry Swanson4,5, Karen Ousey6,7, Keryln Carville8,9. 1. Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Curtin University, Perth, Australia; Honorary Associate, School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Honorary Senior Lecturer, Australian National University, ANU Medical School, Canberra, Australia. 3. Subcommittee Chair for Education of International Wound Infection Institute, UK. 4. Nurse Practitioner, Warnambool, Victoria, Australia. 5. Vice Chair of International Wound Infection Institute, UK. 6. Professor of Skin Integrity, Director for the Institute of Skin Integrity and Infection Prevention, University of Huddersfield, UK. 7. Chair of International Wound Infection Institute, UK. 8. Professor of Primary Health Care and Community Nursing, Silver Chain Group and Curtin University, School of Nursing Midwifery and Paramedicine, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. 9. Subcommittee Chair for Evidence of International Wound Infection Institute, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To achieve international consensus relating to clinical indicators for a chronic wound, wound infection and biofilm presence to inform the development of international clinical guidance for assessing and managing wound infection. METHOD: An online Delphi consensus process of international key opinion leaders in infection was undertaken. A literature search underpinned the development of issue statements related to terminology, emerging topics and debate in the field of wound infection. Experts participated in three rounds of consensus voting, sharing their opinions and indicating their level of agreement with the issue statements. Votes were calculated using web-based software that implements a nominal group voting methodology previously published by Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles. RESULTS: A total of 14 experts took part in the development process. Consensus was reached on clinical indicators of wound chronicity, wound infection and biofilm presence. Agreement was also reached that the term 'critical colonisation' should no longer be used to refer to a stage in the wound infection continuum. CONCLUSION: Outcomes from the consensus process were used to inform the development of international, evidence-informed guidance on the assessment and treatment of wound infection to promote improved outcomes for people with wounds.
OBJECTIVE: To achieve international consensus relating to clinical indicators for a chronic wound, wound infection and biofilm presence to inform the development of international clinical guidance for assessing and managing wound infection. METHOD: An online Delphi consensus process of international key opinion leaders in infection was undertaken. A literature search underpinned the development of issue statements related to terminology, emerging topics and debate in the field of wound infection. Experts participated in three rounds of consensus voting, sharing their opinions and indicating their level of agreement with the issue statements. Votes were calculated using web-based software that implements a nominal group voting methodology previously published by Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles. RESULTS: A total of 14 experts took part in the development process. Consensus was reached on clinical indicators of wound chronicity, wound infection and biofilm presence. Agreement was also reached that the term 'critical colonisation' should no longer be used to refer to a stage in the wound infection continuum. CONCLUSION: Outcomes from the consensus process were used to inform the development of international, evidence-informed guidance on the assessment and treatment of wound infection to promote improved outcomes for people with wounds.