Search

Although great strides have been made to tackle hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs), there is a need for greater recognition of device-related pressure ulcers (DRPUs), including their causes, management and prevention. This consensus statement, an updated second edition, aims to continue raising awareness of these largely preventable injuries and, crucially, to stimulate action. DRPUs are relatively common and account for a growing proportion of HAPUs. Updated information on the incidence of DRPUs is described in chapter 1. Although it is recognised that DRPUs increase the financial burden of healthcare, there is little formal analysis of their economic impact. This needs to be addressed; robust evidence on the burden of DRPUs and the value that can be released by adopting prevention strategies is needed to help drive action. Our understanding of the pathophysiology of DRPUs has improved significantly over the past few years; this is described in chapter 2. One crucial difference between PUs and DRPUs is that body-weight forces are less significant in DRPUs, with the force being exerted from a device that is typically strapped or taped onto the body. Devices and their securement may generate high stress concentrations in tissues, leading to cell and tissue-damage pathways associated with sustained deformation. As more evidence is published on DRPUs, recurring themes are emerging, as outlined in chapter 3: The most vulnerable patients are bearing the brunt of DRPUs; paediatric and neonatal patients, and all those needing critical care are particularly susceptible. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a new high-risk population (people with severe COVID-19 infection) emerged. They are at increased risk of DRPUs because of their need for prolonged ventilatory support, especially when 'proning' Devices associated with DRPUs are often used to perform essential, life-saving functions. They include continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) masks or endotracheal tubes. Minimising their use is clearly not an option, so practice innovation is needed Although the most common locations for DRPUs are the face, ears, lower legs and heels, any location where a device comes into close contact with the skin can be at risk. In the same vein, any device, whether needed for a medical purpose or not, has the capacity to cause injury if its use is not properly managed. Vigilance is needed for all patients. What can be done? The importance of routine risk assessment is covered in chapter 4. Although use of a validated risk assessment tool is the vital first step, this will not be enough on its own. Several steps can be taken to ensure the safe use of devices. These are described in chapter 5 and include device repositioning, cushioning with prophylactic dressings and moisture control (only where possible and clinically appropriate). Of key importance is the development of an institutional protocol and champions to ensure all necessary steps are adopted. For any of these changes to be put into practice, awareness of DRPUs needs to increase. A number of proposals are outlined in chapter 6. A change of focus among health professionals and policy makers, along with more investment in education and training, are needed. All patients being managed with a medical device must be considered as at high risk. The pandemic introduced the world to the problem of DRPUs in health professionals caused by the extended wear of personal protective equipment. Health professionals also have a right to expect institutional protocols and provision of devices that protect them from DRPUs. Cutting-edge ideas and technologies that may be available in the future are described in chapter 7. When designing new products, manufacturers of medical devices have a duty of care to investigate the risks of DRPUs associated with their products and mitigate them, wherever possible. Our developing understanding of how the design, structure and materials used in medical devices contribute to DRPUs will help us develop new solutions for tomorrow. The first step is for everyone involved to ask themselves, 'what can I do to help?' There is work to be done-your journey to reduce DRPUs starts here!.

Catherine Milne and colleagues present the findings of their review, ccna2@juno.com.

Objective: The aim of 2022 IWII consensus document update was to provide an accessible and useful clinical resource incorporating the latest evidence and current best practice for wound infection and prevention Method: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify research published since 2016. A modified Delphi process was used for definitions within the document. Grading of evidence for clinical effectiveness of wound infection interventions for topical antimicrobial treatments was guided by the PICO approach. Evidence sources were critically appraised using tools recommended by GRADE. Ranking was labelled as high, moderate or low certainty. The document was peer reviewed by leading experts in wound management/ infection. Outcome: The 2022 Wound Infection in Clinical Practice document consists of 15 sections of contemporary wound infection practice, methodology, References: and a glossary. Extensive work has been conducted to update the 2022 IWII-WIC Management Guide and provides a one-page visual tool for wound infection and biofilm management to promote ease of use and accessibility for clinicians Results: The entire document has been published on the International Wound Infection Institute website but additional pdf versions of the WIC and Management Guide are also free to download. One version is the entire diagram, another is just the WIC and the third is the BBWC diagram of the step down / step up care. Conclusion: The focus of this presentation would be on the updated WIC and Management Guide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The presence of diabetic foot disease often requires extensive adaptations of employment practices and, in many cases, reduces or ends the working lives of those affected. This study explores peoples' perceptions of the impact of diabetic foot disease on their working life, and analyses trends in identified work-related issues. An awareness of the employment experiences of working-aged people with diabetic foot disease should inform future initiatives in the education and support of this vulnerable population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Motor neuron disease represents a group of progressive and incurable diseases that are characterised by selective loss of motor neurons, resulting in an urgent need for rapid identification of effective disease-modifying therapies. The MND SMART trial aims to test the safety and efficacy of promising interventions efficiently and definitively against a single contemporaneous placebo control group. We now report results of the stage two interim analysis for memantine and trazodone., Methods: MND SMART is an investigator-led, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiarm, multistage, randomised, adaptive platform trial recruiting at 20 hospital centres in the UK. Individuals older than 18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of either amyotrophic lateral sclerosis classified by the revised El Escorial criteria, primary lateral sclerosis, progressive muscular atrophy, or progressive bulbar palsy, regardless of disease duration, were eligible for screening. Participants were randomised (1:1:1) to receive oral trazodone 200 mg once a day, oral memantine 20 mg once a day, or matched placebo using a computer-generated minimisation algorithm delivered via a secure web-based system. Co-primary outcome measures were clinical functioning, measured by rate of change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale Revised (ALSFRS-R), and survival. Comparisons were conducted in four stages, with predefined criteria for stopping at the end of stages one and two. We report interim analysis from the stage two results, which was done when 100 participants per group (excluding long survivors, defined as >8 years since diagnosis at baseline) completed a minimum of 12 months of follow-up for the candidate investigational medicinal products. The trial is registered on the European Clinical Trials Registry, 2019-000099-41, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04302870, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Feb 27, 2020, and July 24, 2023 (database lock for interim analysis two), 554 people with a motor neuron disease were randomly allocated to memantine (183 [33%]), trazodone (185 [33%]), or placebo (186 [34%]). The primary interim analysis population comprised 530 participants, of whom 175 (33%) had been allocated memantine, 175 (33%) had been allocated trazodone, and 180 (34%) had been allocated placebo. Over 12 months of follow-up, the mean rate of change per month in ALSFRS-R was -0·650 for memantine, -0·625 for trazodone, and -0·655 for placebo (memantine versus placebo estimated mean difference 0·033, one-sided 90% CI lower level -0·085; one-sided p=0·36; trazodone vs placebo: 0·065, -0·051; one-sided p=0·24). The one-sided p values were both above the significance threshold of 10%, indicating that neither memantine nor trazodone groups met the criteria for continuation. There were 483 participants with at least one adverse event (145 [77%] on placebo, 170 [91%] on memantine, and 168 [90%] on trazodone). There were 88 participants with at least one serious adverse event (37 [20%] on memantine, 27 [14%] on trazodone, and 24 [13%] on placebo). A total of 11 serious adverse event led to treatment discontinuation. There was no survival difference between comparisons, with 49 deaths in the memantine group, 52 deaths in the trazodone group, and 48 deaths in the placebo group., Interpretation: Neither memantine nor trazodone improved efficacy outcomes compared with placebo. This result is sufficiently powered to warrant no further testing of trazodone or memantine in motor neuron disease at the doses evaluated in this study. The multiarm multistage design shows important benefits in reducing the time, cost, and participant numbers to reach a definitive result., Funding: The Euan MacDonald Centre, MND Scotland, My Name'5 Doddie Foundation, and Baillie Gifford., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)