M.O.I.S.T. Concept for the Local Therapy of Chronic Wounds: An International Update

Chronic wounds remain a significant clinical challenge both for those affected and for healthcare systems. The treatment is often comprised and complex. All patients should receive wound care that is integrated into a holistic approach involving local management that addresses the underlying etiology and provides for gold standard therapy to support healing, avoid complications and be more cost effective. There have been significant advances in medicine over the last few decades. The development of new technologies and therapeutics for the local treatment of wounds is also constantly increasing. To help standardize clinical practice with regard to the multitude of wound products, the M.O.I.S.T. concept was developed by a multidisciplinary expert group. The M stands for moisture balance, O for oxygen balance, I for infection control, S for supporting strategies, and T for tissue management. Since the M.O.I.S.T. concept, which originated in the German-speaking countries, is now intended to provide healthcare professionals with an adapted instrument to be used in clinical practice, and a recent update to the concept has been undertaken by a group of interdisciplinary experts to align it with international standards. The M.O.I.S.T. concept can now be used internationally both as an educational tool and for the practical implementation of modern local treatment concepts for patients with chronic wounds and can also be used in routine clinical practice.

What is slough? Defining the proteomic and microbial composition of slough and its implications for wound healing

Slough is a well-known feature of non-healing wounds. This pilot study aims to determine the proteomic and microbiologic components of slough as well as interrogate the associations between wound slough components and wound healing. Ten subjects with slow-to-heal wounds and visible slough were enrolled. Aetiologies included venous stasis ulcers, post-surgical site infections and pressure ulcers. Patient co-morbidities and wound healing outcome at 3-months post-sample collection was recorded. Debrided slough was analysed microscopically, through untargeted proteomics, and high-throughput bacterial 16S-ribosomal gene sequencing. Microscopic imaging revealed wound slough to be amorphous in structure and highly variable. 16S-profiling found slough microbial communities to associate with wound aetiology and location on the body. Across all subjects, slough largely consisted of proteins involved in skin structure and formation, blood-clot formation and immune processes. To predict variables associated with wound healing, protein, microbial and clinical datasets were integrated into a supervised discriminant analysis. This analysis revealed that healing wounds were enriched for proteins involved in skin barrier development and negative regulation of immune responses. While wounds that deteriorated over time started off with a higher baseline Bates-Jensen Wound Assessment Score and were enriched for anaerobic bacterial taxa and chronic inflammatory proteins. To our knowledge, this is the first study to integrate clinical, microbiome, and proteomic data to systematically characterise wound slough and integrate it into a single assessment to predict wound healing outcome. Collectively, our findings underscore how slough components can help identify wounds at risk of continued impaired healing and serves as an underutilised biomarker.

Fluid handling by foam wound dressings: From engineering theory to advanced laboratory performance evaluations

This article describes the contemporary bioengineering theory and practice of evaluating the fluid handling performance of foam-based dressings, with focus on the important and clinically relevant engineering structure-function relationships and on advanced laboratory testing methods for pre-clinical quantitative assessments of this common type of wound dressings. The effects of key wound dressing material-related and treatment-related physical factors on the absorbency and overall fluid handling of foam-based dressings are thoroughly and quantitively analysed. Discussions include exudate viscosity and temperature, action of mechanical forces and the dressing microstructure and associated interactions. Based on this comprehensive review, we propose a newly developed testing method, experimental metrics and clinical benchmarks that are clinically relevant and can set the standard for robust fluid handling performance evaluations. The purpose of this evaluative framework is to translate the physical characteristics and performance determinants of a foam dressing into achievable best clinical outcomes. These guiding principles are key to distinguishing desirable properties of a dressing that contribute to optimal performance in clinical settings.

How Should Clinical Wound Care and Management Translate to Effective Engineering Standard Testing Requirements from Foam Dressings? Mapping the Existing Gaps and Needs

Significance: Wounds of all types remain one of the most important, expensive, and common medical problems, for example, up to approximately two-thirds of the work time of community nurses is spent on wound management. Many wounds are treated by means of dressings. The materials used in a dressing, their microarchitecture, and how they are composed and constructed form the basis for the laboratory and clinical performances of any advanced dressing. Recent Advances: The established structure/function principle in material science is reviewed and analyzed in this article in the context of wound dressings. This principle states that the microstructure determines the physical, mechanical, and fluid transport and handling properties, all of which are critically important for, and relevant to the, adequate performances of wound dressings. Critical Issues: According to the above principle, once the clinical requirements for wound care and management are defined for a given wound type and etiology, it should be theoretically possible to translate clinically relevant characteristics of dressings into physical test designs resulting specific metrics of materials, mechanical, and fluid transport and handling properties, all of which should be determined to meet the clinical objectives and be measurable through standardized bench testing. Future Directions: This multidisciplinary review article, written by an International Wound Dressing Technology Expert Panel, discusses the translation of clinical wound care and management into effective, basic engineering standard testing requirements from wound dressings with respect to material types, microarchitecture, and properties, to achieve the desirable performance in supporting healing and improving the quality of life of patients.

Clinical performance characteristics for bordered foam dressings in the treatment of complex wounds: An international wound dressing technology expert panel review

The aim of this article is to identify and describe clinical practice performance characteristics for bordered foam dressings in the treatment of complex wounds. Our recently published systematic review of outcomes and applied measurement instruments for the use of bordered foam dressings in complex wounds has led to us identifying a range of important clinical and patient-centred issues related to this dressing class. Specifically, here, we focus on an overview of performance criteria in the areas of application, adhesion, exudate management and debridement functions of bordered foam dressings. Our hope is that by highlighting the clinical performance criteria, future testing standards for wound dressings will more closely match our clinical expectations and, thereby, assist clinicians to make better wound treatment choices based on meaningful and clinically relevant dressing product performance standards. complex wounds, complex wound care, treatment, bordered foam dressings, dressing performance.

Mechanical and contact characteristics of foam materials within wound dressings: Theoretical and practical considerations in treatment

In the treatment of acute and chronic wounds, the clinical performance of a given foam-based dressing, and, ultimately, the wound healing and cost of care outcomes are strongly influenced by the mechanical performance of the foam material/s within that dressing. Most aspects of the mechanical performance of foam materials, for example, their stiffness, frictional properties, conformability, swelling characteristics and durability, and the overall mechanical protection provided by a foam-based dressing to a wound strongly depend on the microstructure of the foam components, particularly on their microtopography, density and porosity. This article, therefore, provides, for the first time, a comprehensive, self-inclusive compilation of clinically relevant theoretical and practical considerations, based on published analytical and experimental research as well as clinical experience related to the mechanical performance of foams in foam-based wound dressings. The current bioengineering information is useful for establishing understanding of the importance of mechanical properties of foams in foam-based dressings among clinicians and researchers in industry and academia, and other potential stakeholders in the wound care field, for example, regulators and buyers. This information is also particularly important for the development of standardised test methods for the evaluation of foam-based wound dressings and resulting standard mechanical performance metrics for these dressings.

The development of a core outcome set for clinical effectiveness studies of bordered foam dressings in the treatment of complex wounds

AIM

The aim of this project was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical effectiveness studies of bordered foam dressings in the treatment of complex wounds.

METHODS

The research project followed the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative and consisted of two phases. The first phase prepared the background and process, while the second phase had three steps: outcome list generation via systematic review and qualitative study, Delphi consensus study, and consensus meeting. The study has been registered in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database.

RESULTS

The systematic review resulted in 82 outcomes and 20 additional outcomes were obtained during the interviews. After refinement, 111 panellists from 23 countries rated a list of 51 outcomes. In the following consensus meeting, six outcomes were prioritized to be included in the core outcome set. After the consensus meeting, a patient-reported outcome was added to the core outcome set.

CONCLUSION

The COS for evaluating the effectiveness of bordered foam dressings in treating complex wounds includes 7 outcomes: "ability to stay in place", "leakage", "pain", "dressing related periwound skin changes", "change in wound size over time", and "overall satisfaction". These identified outcomes are correlated with contemporary bioengineering testing and evaluation methods for dressing performance, which underpins the need for a close multidisciplinary collaboration to advance the field of wound dressings. The outcome 'overall satisfaction' reflects the impact of complex wounds and their treatment on a patient's daily life. The use of these outcomes is recommended to improve data synthesis and promote evidence-based practice. Future developments in COS development involve creating measurement instruments and relevant endpoints for these outcomes.

Establishing a consensus on wound infection definitions

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to establish an international, interorganisational consensus on wound infection terminology.

METHODS

This project consisted of definition scoping and a Delphi process to produce a consensus glossary for 18 wound infection terms. Recent guidelines/consensus documents were reviewed to identify 2-4 definitions for each term. An online consensus process was undertaken using the RAND Appropriateness Method, a consensus method for panels to reach agreement. International wound organisations nominated experts to participate, from whom 21 participants were selected to represent different organisations, geographic regions and disciplines. In the first consensus round, each term was presented alongside 2-3 definitions and participants nominated their preferred definition, with the majority vote used to select a baseline definition. The consensus process then proceeded, with participants using a 9-point Likert scale to score their level of agreement or disagreement with the definition for each term. Participants also provided a justification outlining the reason behind their rating. At the end of each round, an index was calculated to provide a quantitative evaluation indicating whether agreement or disagreement had been reached.

RESULTS

Reasoning statements were summarised and the definitions were adjusted to incorporate concepts identified by participants. The adjusted definition was presented in the next consensus round, together with the reasoning statements. Terms for which a final definition was not achieved in three consensus rounds were finalised with preferential voting using 2-3 definitions that had reached consensus.

PROJECT PROGRESS AND SIGNIFICANCE

The project generated a glossary of wound infection terms, endorsed through participation of 15 international organisations, for dissemination of guidelines and clinical decision-making/teaching tools.

IWII Wound Infection in Clinical Practice consensus document: 2022 update

ABSTRACT

Wound infection is a major challenge for clinicians globally, with accurate and timely identification of wound infection being critical to achieving clinical and cost-effective management, and promotion of healing. This paper presents an overview of the development of the International Wound Infection Institute (IWII)'s 2022 Wound Infection in Clinical Practice consensus document. The updated document summarises current evidence and provides multidisciplinary healthcare providers with effective guidance and support on terminology, paradigms related to biofilm, identification of wound infection, wound cleansing, debridement and antimicrobial stewardship. Integral to the update is revision of wound infection management strategies which are incorporated within the IWII's Wound Infection Continuum (IWII-WIC) and management plan. The aim of the 2022 IWII consensus document update was to provide an accessible and useful clinical resource in at least six languages, incorporating the latest evidence and current best practice for wound infection and prevention. Dissemination techniques for the consensus are discussed and highlighted.

Australian guideline on wound healing interventions to enhance healing of foot ulcers: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease

BACKGROUND

Diabetes-related foot ulceration (DFU) has a substantial burden on both individuals and healthcare systems both globally and in Australia. There is a pressing need for updated guidelines on wound healing interventions to improve outcomes for people living with DFU. A national expert panel was convened to develop new Australian evidence-based guidelines on wound healing interventions for people with DFU by adapting suitable international guidelines to the Australian context.

METHODS

The panel followed National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) procedures to adapt suitable international guidelines by the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) to the Australian context. The panel systematically screened, assessed and judged all IWGDF wound healing recommendations using ADAPTE and GRADE frameworks for adapting guidelines to decide which recommendations should be adopted, adapted or excluded in the Australian context. Each recommendation had their wording, quality of evidence, and strength of recommendation re-evaluated, plus rationale, justifications and implementation considerations provided for the Australian context. This guideline underwent public consultation, further revision and approval by ten national peak bodies.

RESULTS

Thirteen IWGDF wound healing recommendations were evaluated in this process. After screening, nine recommendations were adopted and four were adapted after full assessment. Two recommendations had their strength of recommendations downgraded, one intervention was not currently approved for use in Australia, one intervention specified the need to obtain informed consent to be acceptable in Australia, and another was reworded to clarify best standard of care. Overall, five wound healing interventions have been recommended as having the evidence-based potential to improve wound healing in specific types of DFU when used in conjunction with other best standards of DFU care, including sucrose-octasulfate impregnated dressing, systemic hyperbaric oxygen therapy, negative pressure wound therapy, placental-derived products, and the autologous combined leucocyte, platelet and fibrin dressing. The six new guidelines and the full protocol can be found at: https://diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/ CONCLUSIONS: The IWGDF guideline for wound healing interventions has been adapted to suit the Australian context, and in particular for geographically remote and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This new national wound healing guideline, endorsed by ten national peak bodies, also highlights important considerations for implementation, monitoring, and future research priorities in Australia.

Embedding Wound Hygiene into a proactive wound healing strategy

Foreword. Wound Hygiene: the next stage

Since a panel published the first consensus document on Wound Hygiene in March 2020, there has been a flurry of activity in support of this newly established concept in proactive wound healing. 1 The document concluded that all wounds, particularly hard-to-heal ones, will benefit from Wound Hygiene, which should be initiated at the first referral, following a full holistic assessment to identify the wound aetiology and comorbidities, and then implemented at every dressing change until full healing occurs. 1 The consensus has since been bolstered by educational webinars; competency-based skills training and support; development of international Wound Hygiene ambassadors; a survey of 1478 respondents, published in July 2021; 2 and a case study supplement, published in January 2022, featuring a range of wound types, anatomies and underlying conditions on the improvements in wound-healing progress that can be achieved. 3 Wound Hygiene has gained its own identity and is now a term in and of itself, that encompasses a 4-step protocol of care. It is an antibiofilm approach that is increasingly being used across wound care. The results of the survey 2 were particularly encouraging for seeing how far Wound Hygiene has come, and how quickly: More than half (57.4%) had heard of the concept of Wound Hygiene Of those, 75.3% have implemented Wound Hygiene Overall, following implementation of Wound Hygiene, 80.3% of respondents reported improved healing rates. 2 However, the top three barriers identified by the survey—lack of confidence, competence and research data—show that there is more to be done to support Wound Hygiene in practice. 2 As a result, a consensus panel of international key opinion leaders convened virtually in the summer of 2021 to discuss what has been done so far, the outputs of the survey, and ideas for addressing the unmet needs identified by the results. The result is this publication, which represents an addendum to the initial consensus document, broadening support for implementation of Wound Hygiene. This document will reflect on the reasons Wound Hygiene has been successful in its first two years of implementation, reiterating its DNA: Do not wait to treat hard-to-heal wounds Use a simple 4-step approach Enable all healthcare professionals to implement and use Wound Hygiene. The document will also discuss the evolution of the Wound Hygiene concept, focusing on how and when to implement Wound Hygiene on all tissue types of hard-to-heal wounds, and proposing what these are. The panel has expanded the framework in which Wound Hygiene is used, with the ultimate objective of introducing the concept of ‘embedding Wound Hygiene intro a proactive wound healing strategy.’ Key inefficiencies are often observed along the journeys of people living with hard-to-heal wounds. The limited number of specialised healthcare professionals and the resulting delays in reaching them may increase the likelihood of a hard-to-heal wound developing. In a world where so much is happening so quickly that we may, at times, feel powerless to drive change, the panel wants to provide further guidance to propel the use of Wound Hygiene. The concept of Wound Hygiene is resonating, and the panel wants you to know that in whatever region you work, in whatever area of clinical practice, you are enabled to make this change. Wielding the 4-step Wound Hygiene protocol consistently is a key action every healthcare professional in every care setting can take to tackle the global wound care crisis. Wound Hygiene has taken off—now, where do we want to land? In a place where Wound Hygiene is practised on all wounds, at every stage, until healing. The panel once again recognises that the community of global healthcare providers should consider their local standards and guidelines when applying the recommendations of this document. To this end, the panel has created a flexible 3-phase framework that situates Wound Hygiene as integral to proactive wound healing. The panel hopes you will continue to implement Wound Hygiene and see the benefits it can bring to people living with wounds, as well as those who care for them.

Encuesta sobre la higiene de las heridas: conocimiento, implementación, obstáculos y resultados

Objetivo:

Se ha desarrollado una encuesta para comprender el conocimiento y la implementación actual del concepto de higiene de las heridas un año después de su difusión. También se analizaron los obstáculos para su implementación y los resultados.

Método:

La revista Journal of Wound Care (JWC), con la colaboración de ConvaTec, desarrolló una encuesta de 26 preguntas, compuesta por respuestas de opción múltiple y texto libre, que distribuyó globalmente por correo electrónico y en línea; la encuesta estuvo abierta unas 12 semanas. Debido a la naturaleza exploratoria de la investigación, se utilizó una técnica de muestreo no probabilístico. Los autores analizaron los resultados de la encuesta para sacar conclusiones de los datos.

Resultados:

Un total de 1478 participantes dio su consentimiento para el uso de sus datos combinados anonimizados. Casi el 90% era de Estados Unidos o el Reino Unido. La mayoría se desempeñaba como especialista en el cuidado de las heridas y estaba distribuido equitativamente entre centros de atención primaria y hospitales de agudos. El 66,6% había trabajado en el área de cuidado de las heridas durante más de 8 años. Los encuestados trabajaban con una amplia variedad de tipos de heridas. Más de la mitad (57,4%) había oído hablar del concepto de higiene de las heridas, y entre ellos, el 75,3% la había implementado; el 78,7% respondió que la aplicaba “siempre”, mientras que el 20,8% lo hacía “a veces”. Los tres principales obstáculos para su adopción fueron la confianza (39,0%), el deseo de que haya más estudios sobre la higiene de las heridas (25,7%) y la competencia (24,8%). En general, tras la implementación de la higiene de las heridas, el 80,3% informó que las tasas de cicatrización de sus pacientes habían mejorado.

Conclusión:

Los encuestados estuvieron totalmente de acuerdo en que la implementación de la higiene de las heridas es un método exitoso para el tratamiento del biofilm y un componente fundamental para mejorar las tasas de cicatrización en heridas de difícil cicatrización. Sin embargo, los obstáculos para su adopción e implementación demuestran que se necesitan cursos integrales de educación y capacitación, apoyo institucional para los cambios de política, protocolos, y más estudios clínicos para promover la higiene de las heridas.

Wound hygiene survey: awareness, implementation, barriers and outcomes

OBJECTIVE

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in changes to caseload management, access to training and education, and other additional pressures, a survey was developed to understand current awareness and implementation of the wound hygiene concept into practice one year on from its dissemination. Barriers to implementation and outcomes were also surveyed.

METHOD

The 26-question survey, a mixture of multiple choice and free-text, was developed by the Journal of Wound Care projects team, in consultation with ConvaTec, and distributed globally via email and online; the survey was open for just over 12 weeks. Due to the exploratory nature of the research, non-probability sampling was used. The authors reviewed the outputs of the survey to draw conclusions from the data, with the support of a medical writer.

RESULTS

There were 1478 respondents who agreed to the use of their anonymised aggregated data. Nearly 90% were from the US or UK, and the majority worked in wound care specialist roles, equally distributed between community and acute care settings; 66.6% had been in wound care for more than 8 years. The respondents work across the spectrum of wound types. More than half (57.4%) had heard of the concept of wound hygiene, of whom 75.3% have implemented it; 78.7% answered that they 'always' apply wound hygiene and 20.8% 'sometimes' do so. The top three barriers to adoption were confidence (39.0%), the desire for more research (25.7%) and competence (24.8%). Overall, following implementation of wound hygiene, 80.3% reported that their patients' healing rates had improved.

CONCLUSION

Respondents strongly agreed that implementing wound hygiene is a successful approach for biofilm management and a critical component for improving wound healing rates in hard-to-heal wounds. However, the barriers to its uptake and implementation demonstrate that comprehensive education and training, institutional support for policy and protocol changes, and more clinical research are needed to support wound hygiene.

Ultrasonic-assisted wound debridement: report from a closed panel meeting

Mechanical debridement can be considered as an alternative to surgical debridement if surgery is not available, or is considered impractical or too high risk. One form of selective mechanical debridement is ultrasonic-assisted wound (UAW) debridement. As the published evidence on this is limited, a closed international expert meeting was held to review the existing evidence base on it, present preliminary findings of research currently in progress and discuss individual cases selected from the clinical experts' own practice. The panel also explored the potential barriers to the implementation of UAW debridement and how these might be addressed. It concluded there is sufficient evidence that UAW debridement is an effective method of cleansing and debriding almost all hard-to-heal wounds. Patients who are most likely to benefit from it are not medically stable, on anticoagulants, unable to visit a hospital for wound treatment, and/or have wounds with a poor vascular supply or are close to critical structures. The panel also observed that UAW debridement can be used to prepare the wound for negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) or as an adjunctive to it. Given the potential to experience pain during the procedure, the panel considered that patients will benefit from topical analgesia. The panel noted that health professionals, patients and visitors must be protected from the aerosolisation associated with UAW, to reduce risk of cross-contamination.

Clinical indicators of wound infection and biofilm: reaching international consensus

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.

Understanding biofilm in practice: a global survey of health professionals

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this survey was to examine health professionals' views and practices relating to biofilm in chronic wounds.

METHOD

A global online survey was conducted to assess the current understanding of biofilm and wound management practices. The survey consisted of 20 questions designed to evaluate health professional knowledge of biofilm, perception and understanding of biofilm behaviour, detection and diagnosis, and treatment. Respondents were classified as 'specialists' if wounds were their primary focus and they developed protocols and determined formularies. Respondents were classified as 'generalists' if wounds were part of multiple indications they treat and they were able to choose wound care products from a restricted list of products. The Pearson's chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to assess whether the responses were independent of the clinician role, health-care setting and country.

RESULTS

Overall, 3011 health professionals took part in the survey, of which 397 were excluded or disqualified. Of the remaining 2614 respondents, 1223 (46.8%) completed the entire survey. Although the majority of health professionals were aware of biofilm, knowledge gaps regarding its prevalence in chronic wounds were evident. In general, the majority indicated that they understood that biofilm is detrimental to wound healing. With the exception of wound stalling, there was a lack of consensus on other clinical signs in the detection and diagnosis of biofilm. Knowledge gaps were also evident over the treatment of biofilm and the efficacy of antimicrobial treatments, debridement and wound dressing.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that though there is a broad recognition of biofilm and its possible role in chronic wounds, there is still a need to educate and increase knowledge on recognition and treatment of biofilm.