The role community-based healthcare providers play in managing hard-to-heal wounds

It is common for community-based healthcare providers (CHPs)-many of whom have not received specialised training in wound care-to deliver initial and ongoing management for various wound types and diverse populations. Wounds in any setting can rapidly transition to a stalled, hard-to-heal wound (HTHW) that is not following a normal healing trajectory. Failure to recognise or address issues that cause delayed healing can lead to increased costs, healthcare utilisation and suffering. To encourage early intervention by CHPs, a panel of wound care experts developed actionable evidence-based recommendations for CHPs delineating characteristics and appropriate care in identifying and treating HTHWs. A HTHW is a wound that fails to progress towards healing with standard therapy in an orderly and timely manner and should be referred to a qualified wound care provider (QWCP) for advanced assessment and diagnosis if not healed or reduced in size by 40%-50% within 4 weeks. HTHWs occur in patients with multiple comorbidities, and display increases in exudate, infection, devitalised tissue, maceration or pain, or no change in wound size. CHPs can play an important initial role by seeing the individual's HTHW risk, addressing local infection and providing an optimal wound environment. An easy-to-follow one-page table was developed for the CHP to systematically identify, evaluate and treat HTHWs, incorporating a basic toolkit with items easily obtainable in common office/clinic practice settings. A flow chart using visual HTHW clinical cues is also presented to address CHPs with different learning styles. These tools encourage delivery of appropriate early interventions that can improve overall healthcare efficiency and cost.

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.

Development and psychometric property testing of a skin tear knowledge assessment instrument (OASES) in 37 countries

AIM

To develop and psychometrically evaluate a skin tear knowledge assessment instrument (OASES).

DESIGN

Prospective psychometric instrument validation study.

METHOD

The skin tear knowledge assessment instrument was developed based on a literature review and expert input (N = 19). Face and content validity were assessed in a two-round Delphi procedure by 10 international experts affiliated with the International Skin Tear Advisory Panel (ISTAP). The instrument was psychometrically tested in a convenience sample of 387 nurses in 37 countries (April-May 2020). Validity of the multiple-choice test items (item difficulty, discriminating index, quality of the response alternatives), construct validity, and test-retest reliability (stability) were analysed and evaluated in light of international reference standards.

RESULTS

A 20-item instrument, covering six knowledge domains most relevant to skin tears, was designed. Content validity was established (CVI = 0.90-1.00). Item difficulty varied between 0.24 and 0.94 and the quality of the response alternatives between 0.01-0.52. The discriminating index was acceptable (0.19-0.77). Participants with a theoretically expected higher knowledge level had a significantly higher total score than participants with theoretically expected lower knowledge (p < .001). The 1-week test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.78-0.86) for the full instrument and varied between 0.72 (95% CI = 0.64-0.79) and 0.85 (95% CI = 0.81-0.89) for the domains. Cohen's Kappa coefficients of the individual items ranged between 0.21 and 0.74.

CONCLUSION

The skin tear knowledge assessment instrument is supported by acceptable psychometric properties and can be applied in nursing education, research, and practice to assess knowledge of healthcare professionals about skin tears.

IMPACT

Prevention and treatment of skin tears are a challenge for healthcare professionals. The provision of adequate care is based on profound and up-to-date knowledge. None of the existing instruments to assess skin tear knowledge is psychometrically tested, nor up-to-date. OASES can be used worldwide to identify education, practice, and research needs and priorities related to skin tears in clinical practice.

Standardizing the classification of skin tears: validity and reliability testing of the International Skin Tear Advisory Panel Classification System in 44 countries

BACKGROUND

Skin tears are acute wounds that are frequently misdiagnosed and under-reported. A standardized and globally adopted skin tear classification system with supporting evidence for diagnostic validity and reliability is required to allow assessment and reporting in a consistent way.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the validity and reliability of the International Skin Tear Advisory Panel (ISTAP) Classification System internationally.

METHODS

A multicountry study was set up to validate the content of the ISTAP Classification System through expert consultation in a two-round Delphi procedure involving 17 experts from 11 countries. An online survey including 24 skin tear photographs was conducted in a convenience sample of 1601 healthcare professionals from 44 countries to measure diagnostic accuracy, agreement, inter-rater reliability and intrarater reliability of the instrument.

RESULTS

A definition for the concept of a 'skin flap' in the area of skin tears was developed and added to the initial ISTAP Classification System consisting of three skin tear types. The overall agreement with the reference standard was 0·79 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·79-0·80] and sensitivity ranged from 0·74 (95% CI 0·73-0·75) to 0·88 (95% CI 0·87-0·88). The inter-rater reliability was 0·57 (95% CI 0·57-0·57). The Cohen's Kappa measuring intrarater reliability was 0·74 (95% CI 0·73-0·75).

CONCLUSIONS

The ISTAP Classification System is supported by evidence for validity and reliability. The ISTAP Classification System should be used for systematic assessment and reporting of skin tears in clinical practice and research globally. What's already known about this topic? Skin tears are common acute wounds that are misdiagnosed and under-reported too often. A skin tear classification system is needed to standardize documentation and description for clinical practice, audit and research. What does this study add? The International Skin Tear Advisory Panel Classification System was psychometrically tested in 1601 healthcare professionals from 44 countries. Diagnostic accuracy was high when differentiating between type 1, 2 and 3 skin tears using a set of validated photographs.