Comparison of compression therapy use, lower limb wound prevalence and nursing activity in England: a multisite audit

OBJECTIVE

This audit was designed to identify the need of the population and the clinical activity associated with wounds and the management of lower limb swelling. The exploration focused on lower leg wound management, access to diagnostics and compression therapy across each audit site. The variation across the sites was explored to gather insight into the real-world barriers to providing evidence-based management for leg ulceration.

METHOD

We undertook wound prevalence audits across six diverse community provider sites in England. The audit was undertaken by the local providers, with the inclusion of tissue viability and podiatry leads and key local stakeholders, often local quality leads, primary care leads and nursing directors. Each audit was undertaken with full engagement of local clinicians. Data were collected centrally, and each audit site received their own local analysis and report, with additional analytical support from the local tissue viability lead to ensure the feedback was contextualised for their stakeholders. Analysis was provided by Accelerate CIC Lymphoedema & Leg Ulcer Clinic.

RESULTS

A total of 2885 patients were reviewed via an online or a paper audit tool. In total, 2721 patients had one or more active wounds. However, 1350 patients had one or more lower leg wounds, with 164 patients being managed for lower limb swelling or prevention of leg ulceration; bilateral conditions ranged from 11-43% across audit sites. Of the six sites, two included both community and primary care providers, thus generating wound point prevalence data. The remaining four sites audited community nursing and podiatry services only, with two sites collecting data on lower limb wounds only rather than all wounds, generating point prevalence for their services only. Compression usage varied across care locations, with the greatest use being seen in community leg ulcer clinics, where it was >96% for 234 residents. Compression usage was lower in the home with a range of 14-62% among 692 residents. For 263 residents, where the cause of their lower leg wound was unknown, compression usage was very low at 12%. Compression usage decreased with age; for three audit sites this was noteworthy, with 65% of those aged >80 years not in receipt of compression. Compression usage had a direct impact on nursing activity; non-use of compression increased activity by 37%.

CONCLUSION

Through the identification of wound location, this series of wound prevalence audits identified a greater number of patients with lower limb wounds than those recognised and classified as a leg ulcer. Substantial variation in access to diagnostics and compression therapy was observed between audit sites, and also between locations within their boroughs. The factors that reduced access to compression therapy included not classifying the lower leg wound as a leg ulcer, being cared for in the home and increasing age of the patient. Lack of compression usage increased nursing activity. Where there is lack of access to therapeutic intervention, the resultant patient harm is not systematically recognised or documented.

Measuring the quality of pressure ulcer prevention: A systematic mapping review of quality indicators

The aim of this study was to provide a systematic overview of available pressure ulcer prevention quality indicators and to evaluate the underlying empirical evidence. A systematic mapping review was conducted with combined searches in Embase and Medline, and websites of relevant institutions and organisations. The eligibility criteria were clear use of the term "quality indicator" regarding pressure ulcer prevention; English or German language; and all settings, populations, and types of resources, including articles, brochures, and online material. In total, n = 146 quality indicators were identified. Most indicators were published in the United States (n = 50). The majority of indicators was developed for the hospital setting (n = 102). Process indicators were the most common (n = 71), followed by outcome indicators (n = 49). Less than half of identified indicators appeared to be practically used. Evidence supporting the validity and reliability were reported for n = 25 and n = 30 indicators respectively. The high number of indicators demonstrate the importance of measuring pressure ulcer prevention quality. This is not an indicator of our ability to accurately measure and evaluate this construct. There is an urgent need to develop evidence-based and internationally comparable indicators to help improve patient care and safety worldwide.

Developing the tissue viability seating guidelines

BACKGROUND

Costs for the prevention and management of pressure ulcers have increased significantly with limited published advice from health and social care organisations on seating and preventing pressure ulcers. At the request of the UK Tissue Viability Society the aim of the publication was to develop a practical guide for people, carers and health and social care professionals on how the research and evidence base on pressure ulcer prevention and management can be applied to those who remain seated for extended periods of time.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The evidence base informing the guidelines was obtained by applying a triangulation of methods: a literature review, listening event and stakeholder group consultation. The purpose was to engage users and carers, academics, clinicians, inspectorate and charities, with an interest in seating, positioning and pressure management to: gather views, feedback, stories, and evidence of the current practices in the field to create a greater awareness of the issue.

CONCLUSION

The new guidelines are inclusive of all people with short and long-term mobility issues to include all population groups. The document includes evidence on where pressure ulcers develop when seated, risk factors, best possible seated position and what seat adjustments are required, the ideal seating assessment, interventions, self-help suggestions and key seating outcomes. The updated TVS CPGs have been informed by the best available evidence, the insights and wisdom of experts, stakeholders and people who spend extended periods of time sitting.