Search

Objective: This article highlights challenges of wound care in low resource settings, considering opportunities for frugal innovation and our experiences while creating virtual wound care clinics across two global communities. In addition, we will discuss four real cases presented within the virtual clinics. An adaptation of the widely accepted tissues, infection, moisture, edge, regeneration and repair of tissue, and social factors (TIMERS) wound assessment is also proposed with considerations for low-resource settings. Method: From March to December 2021 the University of Salford engaged in a virtual wound clinic initiative with colleagues in Fort Portal Regional Referral Hospital. Results: The clinics provided opportunities for professional and academic development of students on postgraduate tissue viability module in Salford, while empowering nurses and midwives in Uganda in taking their place at the centre of multidisciplinary teams in care delivery Furthermore, it created links between the university and clinicians in Uganda to develop the delivery of evidence-based wound management. Throughout this period, challenges associated with low resources were highlighted and, in some cases, innovative approaches to managing wound care were adopted to account for this. Conclusions: The development and delivery of the virtual wound care clinics between the University of Salford and Fort Portal Regional Referral Hospital provided an opportunity for reflection on practice. This led to development of a Fit4purpose wound dressing, revision of evidence-based guidelines, deeper understanding of the scarcity of essential items and frugal practice, and examination of skin tone bias in the signs and symptoms of wound infection in patients with dark skin tones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives: Surveillance of wound infection including signs of infection alongside antimicrobial usage (types, duration, frequency) can highlight knowledge gaps and inconsistencies. This manuscript aims to highlight these, identify and inform opportunities for practice improvement and to show impact of infection management practice may be having on the issue of antimicrobial resistance. Background: Infected wounds pose challenges to healthcare professionals. Balancing risk of wound deterioration and progression to systemic infection with appropriate use of antimicrobials is necessary to minimise development of resistance. Methods: Analysis consisted of a practice survey of 9661 wounds across 70 community sites over a period of one week. Data were collected from projects between 2017 and 2020. The form was available to providers within the UK, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. EQUATOR research guidelines were followed; STROBE checklist for observational research reporting was completed. Results: Infection rates of 8.9% were reported from wounds assessed. These data indicate inconsistencies with diagnosis across practice with non‐specialists more likely to be unsure of wound infection. Greater confidence in infection identification was observed as number of signs increased. Inconsistencies were also observed in appropriate treatment; antimicrobials were used in 35% of wounds considered not infected and not used in 41% of wounds that were identified as infected. Conclusions: This investigation of infection management practice of over 9000 wounds provides an insight into diagnosis and treatment of infection. Inconsistencies in diagnosis and treatment of wound infections reported highlight the need for increased education, awareness of diagnosis and treatment of infection. Relevance to clinical practice: Variability in management of infected wounds highlights opportunities to aid more effective diagnosis and treatment of infected wounds. Incorporation of support tools or evidence‐based pathways into practice may enhance confidence in management of local infection, balanced with appropriate use, potentially minimising resistance and improving outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The National Wound Care Strategy Programme states there are a number of unwarranted variations within wound care across the UK leading to elongated healing times, heightened patient suffering, escalation of costs and increased burden to wound care services. There has been discussion and exploration surrounding the lack of equity across the UK in relation to practitioners being able to access to tissue viability skills and knowledge. The Tissue Viability Leading Change Framework (TVLC) is a framework to assist healthcare practitioners, and those aspiring to work in tissue viability/wound care, to understand the skills and knowledge required in this specialist area of care. TVLC includes 13 different capabilities presented on an online platform. To ascertain which of the 13 capabilities was deemed most important to the user, a survey was distributed to a group of clinicians during the Wounds UK annual conference 2022 aiming to gain greater understanding of the needs and focus of clinical practitioners currently working within the field of wound care. Declaration of interest: The creation of TVLC Framework was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Urgo Medical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This unique evaluation aimed to estimate, the financial impact of non‐attendance on a nation‐wide hospital lymphoedema service. Along with gaining some understanding of patient characteristics of those who Did Not Attend (DNA) and were subsequently discharged. The evaluation design interrogated existing performance data from 2012 to 2022. This information was used to estimate the costs incurred based on national published sources and pay scales. Staffing costs of over £1.1 m in one decade related to the financial impact of over 23 000 unattended lymphoedema appointments. The characteristics of 870 patients from 2019/2020 were also evaluated suggesting that those with a wound alongside complex lymphoedema were less likely to DNA appointments. Two‐thirds of patients were managing two or more comorbidities—obesity, cardiac conditions and diabetes being the most common. It seems likely that some DNAs are avoidable by adapting appointment administrative processes and greater understanding of patients' perception of value. However, the reasons for DNA are likely to be varied and nuanced so potentially a small proportion are unavoidable. Modernising appointment processes and identifying patient value may help minimise DNA costs in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To report the experience of civilian penetrating neck trauma (PNT) at a UK level I trauma centre, propose an initial management algorithm and assess the degree of correlation between clinical signs of injury, operative findings and radiological reports. Design: Retrospective case note review. Setting: UK level I trauma centre April 2012–November 2017. Participants: Three hundred ten cases of PNT were drawn from electronic patient records. Data were extracted on hard and soft signs of vascular or aerodigestive tract injury, clinical management, radiological imaging and patient outcomes. Main outcome measures: Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, morbidity and mortality. The correlation between clinical signs, and radiological reports to internal injury on surgical exploration. Results: Two hundred seventy‐one (87.4%) male and 39 (13.6%) female patients with a mean age of 36 years (16–87) were identified. The most common causes of injury were assault 171 (55.2%) and deliberate self‐harm 118 (38%). A knife was the most common instrument 240 (77.4%). Past psychiatric history was noted in 119 (38.4%), and 60 (19.4%) were intoxicated. 50% were definitively managed in theatre with a negative exploration rate of 38%, and 50% were managed in ED. Pre‐operative radiological reports correlated with operative reports in 62% of cases with venous injury the most common positive and negative finding. Multivariate correlation was r = 0.89, p = 0.045, between hard signs plus positive radiology findings and internal injury on neck exploration. Conclusions: Management of PNT by clinical and radiological signs is safe and effective, and can be streamlined by a decision‐making algorithm as proposed here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study was performed to provide clarity in open fracture management previously skewed by small, specialist centre studies and large, unfocused registry investigations. We report the current management metrics of open fractures across the UK., Method: Patients admitted to hospital with an open fracture (excluding phalanges or isolated hand injuries) between 1 June 2021 and 30 September 2021 were included. Institutional information governance approval was obtained at the lead site and all data entered using Research Electronic Data Capture software. All domains of the British Orthopaedic Association Standard for Open Fracture Management were recorded., Results: Across 51 centres, 1,175 patients were analyzed. Antibiotics were given to 754 (69.0%) in the emergency department, 240 (22.0%) pre-hospital, and 99 (9.1%) as inpatients. Wounds were photographed in 848 (72.7%) cases. Median time to first surgery was 16 hrs 14 mins (interquartile range (IQR) 8 hrs 29 mins to 23 hrs 19 mins). Complex injuries were operated on sooner (median 12 hrs 51 mins (IQR 4 hrs 36 mins to 21 hrs 14 mins)). Of initial procedures, 1,053 (90.3%) occurred between 8am and 8pm. A consultant orthopaedic surgeon was present at 1,039 (89.2%) first procedures. In orthoplastic centres, a consultant plastic surgeon was present at 465 (45.1%) first procedures. Overall, 706 (60.8%) patients required a single operation. At primary debridement, 798 (65.0%) fractures were definitively fixed, while 734 (59.8%) fractures had fixation and coverage in one operation through direct closure or soft-tissue coverage. Negative pressure wound therapy was used in 235 (67.7%) staged procedures. Following wound closure or soft-tissue cover, 509 (47.0%) patients received antibiotics for a median of three days (IQR 1 to 7)., Conclusion: OPEN provides an insight into care across the UK and different levels of hospital for open fractures. Patients are predominantly operated on promptly, in working hours, and at specialist centres. Areas for improvement include combined patient review and follow-up, scheduled operating, earlier definitive soft-tissue cover, and more robust antibiotic husbandry.Cite this article: Bone Joint J  2022;104-B(9):1073-1080.