Search

Background: A skin tear is a traumatic wound that occurs in up to one in five hospitalized patients. Nursing care includes application of a dressing to create a moist wound healing environment. Aim: To compare the effectiveness of two standard dressings (adhesive silicone foam vs. meshed silicone interface) to heal hospital‐acquired skin tear. Methods: An intention‐to‐treat pilot study was designed using a randomized, non‐inferiority trial in an Australian tertiary hospital setting. Consenting participants (n = 52) had acquired a skin tear within the previous 24 h and had agreed to a 3‐week follow‐up. Data were collected between 2014 and 2020. The primary outcome measure was wound healing at 21 days. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Per protocol, 86% of skin tears were fully healed at 3 weeks in the adhesive silicone foam group, compared to 59% in the meshed silicone interface group. Greater healing was observed across all skin tear categories in the adhesive silicone foam dressing group. In the intention‐to‐treat sample, healing was 69% and 42%, respectively. Conclusions: Results suggest the adhesive silicone foam dressing may be superior, as it produced clinically significant healing of skin tears at 3 weeks compared to the meshed silicone interface dressing. Accounting for potential loss to follow‐up, a sample of at least 103 participants per arm would be required to power a definitive study. Summary statement: What is already known about this topic? A skin tear is a traumatic wound that is commonly acquired during hospitalization that affects older adults in particular. In hospital settings, it may occur in up to one in five patients.A variety of skin tear dressings have been used in previous studies, with healing rates ranging from 34% to 97% at 21 days; however, evidence for the most effective dressing type is inconclusive.If treated inappropriately, or left untreated, minor skin tears can become chronic or complicated wounds, yet prevalence and treatment of hospital‐acquired injuries are under‐reported. What this paper adds? Based on our per‐protocol results, an adhesive silicone foam dressing may be superior, as it produced clinically significant healing of 86% of skin tears at 3 weeks compared to 59% with the meshed silicone interface dressing.Based on the methods and results from this pilot study, a future definitive trial would be feasible but would need to account for a relatively large loss to follow‐up rate. The implications of this paper: Using our intention‐to‐treat results, a future study would need a sample size of 103 per arm to be sufficiently powered, which may be impractical to achieve within a single hospital setting; thus, a multi‐site study would be advisable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This study aims to ascertain if differences exist in the perception of the professional practice environment and personal well-being of nurses across different geographical areas in Queensland. Design This paper was performed on a prospective, self-report cross-sectional on-line survey. Setting The study was conducted among the nurses employed in public and private health care settings: acute hospitals, community health and aged care in Queensland, Australia. Participants Participants of this study were 1608 registered and enrolled nurses and assistants in nursing, current members of the Queensland Nurses Union in 2013 and who provided a workplace postcode. One thousand eight of these participants worked in major cities, while 382 in rural locations and 238 in remote areas. Interventions None. Main outcome measures Scores of well-being as determined by the following scales: the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale, the Professional Quality of Life Scale version 5, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale and of the Professional Practice Environment using the Practice Environment Scale - Nursing Work Index Revised. Results Nurses employed in major cities perceived 'nursing foundations for quality care' more favourably than those from other settings. Remote area nurses had lower levels of secondary traumatic stress than nurses in major cities and rural areas. There was no difference between nurses across their geographical locations for stress, anxiety, depression, compassion satisfaction, burnout, resilience and the four other measures of the Practice Environment Scale. Conclusions The study findings provide new data suggesting that, with the exception of secondary traumatic stress, the personal well-being of nurses does not differ across geographical settings. Similarly, with the exception of the subscale of 'nursing foundations for quality care' there was no difference in perceptions of the professional practice environment. As secondary traumatic stress is associated with burnout, this finding needs to be investigated further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]