Search

Patient-centred care is one of the new mantras of nursing and medicine. However, I wonder if this is a concept we are starting to take for granted, and if our understanding of it is based more on assumptions than we'd like to admit. I've often interpreted it as the need to involve patients in decision-making and ensure they are happy with the care they receive. In short, we want their involvement and, ultimately, stamp of approval.

Many exciting new initiatives are described in this month's international organisations' update (see pages 600-604). One that caught my eye is the first EPUAP focus meeting on 'Technological Innovations in Pressure Ulcer Diagnosis, Prevention and Treatment', which takes place in Tel Aviv, Israel, on 16-17 April 2012. In case you're wondering how relevant a focus group on technological innovation is to you, especially in this current climate of cuts and cost savings, then please note this is an opportunity for clinicians to influence, in part, the scientific agenda of both researchers and industry.

I have just arrived back from two very enjoyable (albeit rainy) days in Galway, attending the Wound Management Association of Ireland's biennial conference. The title of one of the sessions, 'The great debate: technology versus dressings in wound management - is there a difference in outcomes?', caught my eye. Interestingly, while listening to the proceedings, it became apparent that there was more consensus than debate among the delegates, with most agreeing that the key to success is simply the ability to identify which option is most suited to the needs of the patient and wound. Ironically, given that we were talking about new technology, the old phrase 'back to basics' was used repeatedly, referring in this instance to the need for thorough and holistic assessment. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

At the time of writing, it is barely a week since the European Wound Management Association conference in Brussels. For me, one of the highlights of these events is the opportunity to meet so many readers and get feedback on the journal. It was also great to see EWMA and other wound-care associations, industry representatives and practitioners all working together to achieve the shared goal of disseminating information on best practice. A perfect example of tripartite working.

It may be me, but I get the feeling that tissue viability practitioners are more secure, and feel less under threat, than they did maybe three or four years ago. While everyone working in tissue viability knows there is still a need to prove their worth, there is less talk of the need to actually safeguard services. Now, attention is turning to how tissue viability practitioners can show, without doubt or fear of contradiction, that they are providing a quality service that is worth investing in further. Are you confident you can do this?

Hows this for two contrasting headlines? Maggot therapy hope premature, according to the BBC News Online1 versus When it comes to wound healing, the maggot cleans up, from the more sanguine Times Online.2 Both refer to the same study, of course. As my former publisher commented, I love the media.

A survey to estimate the resource cost of wound care in one UK primary care trust published in this issue (see page 93) found that it amounted to 1.44% of the local health-care budget in 2006-2007. This is probably an underestimate as it only took into account the costs associated with dressing- change frequency, treatment times and district nurse travel time, and ignored other wound-related activities such as risk assessment and patient repositioning. Based on these parameters, the authors concluded that the demands of wound management required the equivalent of 45.4 full-time nurses.