Search

Background: Evidence shows that ongoing accurate wound assessments using valid and reliable measurement methods is essential to effective wound monitoring and better wound care management. Relying on subjective interpretation in measuring wound dimensions and assuming a rectilinear shape of all wounds renders an inconsistent and inaccurate wound area measurement., Objective: The authors investigated the discrepancy in wound area measurements using a DWMS versus TPR methods and compared debridement codes submitted for reimbursement by assessment method., Methods: The width and length of 177 wounds in 56 patients were measured at an outpatient clinic in the United States using the TPR method (width × length formula) and a DWMS (traced wound dimensions). The maximal allowable payment for debridement was calculated for both methods using the reported CPT codes based on each 20-cm2 estimated surface area., Results: The average wound surface area was significantly higher with the TPR method than with the DWMS (20.20 and 12.81, respectively; P = .025). For patients with dark skin tones, ill-defined wound edges, irregular wound shapes, unhealthy tissues, and the presence of necrotic tissues, the use of the DWMS resulted in significantly lower mean differences in wound area measurements of 14.4 cm2 (P < .008), 8.2 cm2 (P = .040), 6.8 cm2 (P = .045), 13.1 cm2 (P = .036), and 7.6 cm2 (P = .043), respectively, compared with the TPR method. Use of the DWMS for wound surface area measurement resulted in a 10.6% lower reimbursement amount for debridement, with 82 fewer submitted codes, compared with the TPR method., Conclusions: Compared with the DWMS, TPR measurements overestimated wound area more than 36.6%. This overestimation was associated with dark skin tones and wounds with irregular edges, irregular shapes, and necrotic tissue.