Postcare Recommendations for Emergency Department Wounds

The Effectiveness of Pictorial Discharge Advice Versus Standard Advice Following Discharge From the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Failure to provide adequate discharge advice to patients on leaving the emergency department can lead to poor understanding of and noncompliance with discharge instructions and consequently postdischarge complications or hospital readmissions. The use of pictographs to complement discharge advice has the potential to enhance patient recall and comprehension. The purpose of this paper was to determine the effectiveness of pictorial discharge advice compared with standard discharge advice in the emergency department.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. CINAHL, MEDLINE, ASSIA, and EMBASE were searched from inception to March 1, 2020, combining terms related to the emergency room, pictogram, and randomized trials as appropriate. Randomized trials reporting on the use of pictorial discharge advice in the emergency department were eligible for inclusion. Outcome measures were comprehension, compliance with advice, satisfaction with advice and the ED visit, and reattendance rates. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess bias in the included studies.

RESULTS

Four studies were identified as eligible and included in the review. Pictorial discharge advice improved comprehension, compliance, and patient satisfaction with the advice, but not satisfaction with the ED visit when compared with standard discharge advice. None of the included studies measured reattendance rates.

DISCUSSION

The results of this systematic review support the use of pictorial discharge advice. However, few studies exist; none had a low risk of bias overall, and 3 were published over 12 years ago. This finding highlights a need for further research to inform evidence-based best practices on optimal methods for providing quality discharge advice in the emergency department.

Laceration Management

BACKGROUND

Traumatic lacerations to the skin represent a fairly common reason for seeking emergency department care. Although the incidence of lacerations has decreased over the past decades, traumatic cutaneous lacerations remain a common reason for patients to seek emergency department care.

OBJECTIVE

Innovations in laceration management have the potential to improve patient experience with this common presentation.

DISCUSSION

Studies have confirmed that delays in wound closure rarely confer increased rates of infection, although comorbidities such as diabetes, chronic renal failure, obesity, human immunodeficiency virus, smoking, and cancer should be considered. Antibiotics should be reserved for high-risk wounds, such as those with comorbidities, gross contamination, involvement of deeper structures, stellate wounds, and selected bite wounds. Topical anesthetics, which are painless to apply, have a role in select populations. In most studies, absorbable sutures perform similarly to nonabsorbable sutures and do not require revisit for removal. Novel atraumatic closure devices and expanded use of tissue adhesives for wounds under tension further erode the primacy of regular sutures in wound closure. Maintaining a moist wound environment with occlusive dressings is more important than previously thought. Most topical wound agents are of limited benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent innovations in wound closure are allowing emergency physicians to shift toward painless, atraumatic, and rapid closure of lacerations.

Are patients willing to remove, and capable of removing, their own nonabsorbable sutures?

Objectives:

Providing patients with instructions and equipment regarding self-removal of nonabsorbable sutures could represent a new efficiency in emergency department (ED) practice. The primary outcome was to compare the proportion of patients successfully removing their own sutures when provided with suture removal instructions and equipment versus the standard advice and follow-up care. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, number of physician visits, and patient comfort level.

Methods:

This prospective, controlled, single-blinded, pseudorandomized trial enrolled consecutive ED patients who met the eligibility criteria (age > 19 years, simple lacerations, nonabsorbable sutures, immunocompetent). The study group was provided with wound care instructions, a suture removal kit, and instructions regarding suture self-removal. The control group received wound care instructions alone. Outcomes were assessed by telephone contact at least 14 days after suturing using a standardized questionnaire.

Results:

Overall, 183 patients were enrolled (93 in the intervention group; 90 in the control group). Significantly more patients performed suture self-removal in the intervention group (91.5%; 95% CI 85.4–97.5) compared to the control group (62.8%; 95% CI 52.1–73.6) (p< 0.001). Patients visited their physician less often in the intervention group (9.8%; 95% CI 3.3–16.2) compared to the control group (34.6%; 95% CI 24.1–45.2%) (p< 0.001). Complication rates were similar in both groups.

Conclusion:

Most patients are willing to remove, and capable of removing, their own sutures. Providing appropriate suture removal instructions and equipment to patients with simple lacerations in the ED appears to be both safe and acceptable.

Review of emergency department wound management in soft tissue trauma - is there a plan?

OBJECTIVE

To assess current acute wound management in English emergency departments.

METHOD

All English emergency departments including minor injury units (n=207) were successfully contacted and a telephone questionnaire was completed. This considered wound treatment policy; management including cleansing, analgesia, dressing selection, suturing, referral patterns, medical photography and antibiotic use.

RESULTS

There was a 100% response. Only 40% of departments had a wound treatment policy. Most had implemented staff training, however the nature and timing of this was variable. Wound cleansing was performed by all departments. Most administered analgesia. Suturing was selectively performed by all departments. There was great diversity regarding dressing selection. The most common reasons for referral to specialist units were the complexity of injury and cosmetically sensitive areas. Photographs were regularly taken in one third of units questioned.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed an absence of a standard protocol for early soft tissue wound management in the emergency department setting. Key areas that could be improved are dressing simplification, more defined referral criteria and introduction of standardised protocols with structured teaching programmes. We propose a simple approach to management of acute soft tissue wounds that can be applied to most situations.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

There were no external sources of funding for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Postoperative care of the facial laceration

The purpose of this investigation is to examine factors involved in the postoperative care of traumatic lacerations. An evidence-based comprehensive literature review was conducted. There are a limited number of scientifically proven studies that guide surgeons and emergency room physicians on postoperative care. Randomized controlled trials must be conducted to further standardize the postoperative protocol for simple facial lacerations.