Currently, there are no generally accepted definitions for wounds at risk of infection. In clinical practice, too many chronic wounds are regarded as being at risk of infection, and therefore many topical antimicrobials – in terms of frequency and duration of use – are applied to wounds. Based on expert discussion and current knowledge, a clinical assessment score was developed. The objective of this wounds at risk (W.A.R.) score is to allow decision-making on the indication for the use of antiseptics on the basis of polihexanide. The proposed clinical classification of W.A.R. shall facilitate the decision for wound antisepsis and allow an appropriate general treatment regimen with the focus on the prevention of wound infection. The W.A.R. score is based on a clinically oriented risk assessment using concrete patient circumstances. The indication for the use of antiseptics results from the addition of differently weighted risk causes, for which points are assigned. Antimicrobial treatment is justified in the case of 3 or more points.
Infection and bacterial colonization are important factors in compromised wound healing, particularly in chronic wounds. The current "best practice" for controlling these factors is still unclear. Systemic antibiotics are generally accepted as being the preferred choice for treating infection, provided that ischaemia does not interfere. However, their widespread systemic and topical use is leading to the emergence of resistant bacterial strains such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Colonization of wounds presents a double problem: possible delayed healing if out of balance with the immune system; and as a source for cross-infection. Managing colonization is not yet defined in best practice. The judicious use of dressings, notably those containing certain antiseptic agents, can be valuable in infection control and in promoting healing. This review states the case for taking the antiseptic route as part of the concerted approach to local wound management and infection control.
The management and treatment of infection is a complex and important area in tissue viability nursing. Andrew Kingsley discusses the value of microbiology to clinical practice and the importance of adopting a proactive approach to the management of infected wounds using an infection continuum and algorithm to help promote effective care.
Honey is gaining popularity as a dressing for chronic wounds. Existing literature attributes honey with a number of useful properties, such as a broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, deodorization, debriding and anti-inflammatory actions and stimulation of new tissue growth. Case studies are being published increasingly which record positive outcomes with its use. Recent national media attention has featured the beneficial effects of honey in wound care and patients are beginning to request treatment. While honey may become a useful and widely accepted product for wound management in the future, the following case studies demonstrate that not all the expected beneficial effects are always realized in practice.
BackgroundSkin tears are common in older adults and those taking steroids and warfarin. They are traumatic, often blunt injuries caused by oblique knocks to the extremities. The epidermis may separate from the dermis or both layers from underlying tissues leaving a skin flap or total loss of tissue, which is painful and prone to infection. ‘Dermatuff™’ knee-length socks containing Kevlar fibres (used in stab-proof vests and motorcyclists’ clothing) aim to prevent skin tears. The acceptability of the socks and the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) had not been explored.MethodsIn this pilot parallel group RCT, 90 people at risk of skin-tear injury from Devon care homes and primary care were randomised to receive the socks or treatment as usual (TAU). The pilot aimed to estimate parameters to inform the design of a substantive trial and record professionals’ views and participants’ acceptability of the intervention and of study participation.ResultsParticipants were randomised from July 2013 and followed up until February 2015. Community participants were easier to recruit than care homes residents but were 10 years younger on average and more active. To recruit 90 participants, 395 had to be approached overall as 77% were excluded or declined. Seventy-nine participants (88%) completed the trial and 27/44 (61%) wore the socks for 16 weeks. There were 31 skin tear injuries affecting 18 (20%) of the 90 participants. The TAU group received more injuries, more repeated episodes, and larger tears with greater severity. Common daily diary reasons for not wearing the socks included perceived warmth in hot weather or not being available (holiday, in hospital, bed rest). Resource use data were obtainable and indicated that sock wearing gave a reduction in treatment costs whilst well-completed questionnaires showed improvements in secondary outcomes.ConclusionsThis pilot trial has successfully informed the design and conduct of a future definitive cost-effectiveness RCT. It would need to be conducted in primary care with 880 active at-risk, elderly patients (440 per arm). Skin tear incidence and quality of life (from EQ5D5L) over a 4-month period would be the primary and secondary outcomes respectively.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN96565376.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.