Introduction It is well documented that the prevalence of venous leg ulcers (VLUs) is increasing, coinciding with an ageing population. Accurate global prevalence of VLUs is difficult to estimate due to the range of methodologies used in studies and accuracy of reporting. (1) Venous ulceration is the most common type of leg ulceration and a significant clinical problem, affecting approximately 1% of the population and 3% of people over 80 years of age (2) in westernised countries. Moreover, the global prevalence of VLUs is predicted to escalate dramatically, as people are living longer, often with multiple comorbidities. Recent figures on the prevalence of VLUs are based on a small number of studies, conducted in Western countries, and the evidence is weak. However, it is estimated that 93% of VLUs will heal in 12 months, and 7% remain unhealed after five years. (3) Furthermore, the recurrence rate within 3 months after wound closure is as high as 70%. (4) (-6) Thus, cost-effective adjunct evidence-based treatment strategies and services are needed to help prevent these ulcers, facilitate healing when they occur and prevent recurrence. The impact of a VLU represents social, personal, financial and psychological costs on the individual and further economic drain on the health-care system. This brings the challenge of providing a standardised leg ulcer service which delivers evidence-based treatment for the patient and their ulcer. It is recognised there are variations in practice and barriers preventing the implementation of best practice. There are patients not receiving appropriate and timely treatment in the initial development of VLUs, effective management of their VLU and preventing recurrence once the VLU has healed. Health-care professionals (HCPs) and organisations must have confidence in the development process of clinical practice guidelines and have ownership of these guidelines to ensure those of the highest quality guide their practice. These systematic judgments can assist in policy development, and decision making, improve communication, reduce errors and improve patient outcomes. There is an abundance of studies and guidelines that are available and regularly updated, however, there is still variation in the quality of the services offered to patients with a VLU. There are also variations in the evidence and some recommendations contradict each other, which can cause confusion and be a barrier to implementation. (7) The difference in health-care organisational structures, management support and the responsibility of VLU management can vary in different countries, often causing confusion and a barrier to seeking treatment. These factors further complicate the guideline implementation process, which is generally known to be a challenge with many diseases. (8).

Foreword I n July 2019, a panel of wound care experts, educators and researchers met in the UK to review the literature on medical adhesive-related skin injury and discuss best practice for its assessment and prevention. e two-day meeting resulted in this consensus document, which is intended for anyone who uses adhesive medical devices. e document aims to raise awareness of the widespread occurrence of medical adhesive-related skin injury and the burden it imposes on patients, health professionals and the health service. It seeks to encourage a change in culture, whereby risk assessment and prevention of medical adhesive-related skin injury are considered an integral part of patient care. e document, therefore, provides recommendations for the assessment and prevention of this type of injury, with a view to standardising care across all healthcare settings. It also highlights the need for education on this form of skin damage, which needs to become a core topic in skin care and wound management. Until this happens, there is scope for multidisciplinary teams to provide local training on this subject. In the light of the panel's concern that many health professionals are not only unaware of this avoidable harm but also its abbreviation, MARSI, the term is written in full throughout the document. e panel hopes that implementation of the guidance in this document will reduce avoidable patient su ering and promote better outcomes. Sian Fumarola, Senior Clinical Nurse Specialist, Tissue Viability and Continence, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, UK Overview of medical adhesive-related skin injury  'Medical adhesive-related skin injury' is a term used to defi ne any skin damage related to the use of medical adhesive products or devices such as tapes, wound dressings, stoma products, electrodes, medication patches and wound closure strips. This type of injury is largely avoidable

This study compared a two-layer (Coban 2 Layer) and a four-layer (Profore) compression bandage system in venous leg ulcer patients. Participants (n = 81) were enrolled into an 8-week, randomised, open-label, ten-centre, crossover clinical trial. The primary endpoint was bandage slippage measured at each dressing change. Secondary endpoints included wound healing, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient preference. Mean slippage estimated from a mixed analysis of variance model (697 visits) was 2.48 cm for the two-layer system and 4.17 cm for the four-layer system (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in percent of wounds that healed (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.30), in wound area reduction (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, P = 0.88) or in linear healing rate (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, P = 0.94). The HRQoL Physical Symptoms and Daily Living scores were significantly higher with the two-layer system (pooled two-sample t-test, P < 0.05). Patients had a strong preference for the two-layer system (72%) than the four-layer system (22%), with 6% having no preference. In conclusion, the two-layer system exhibited significantly less bandage slippage than the four-layer system. While less bandage slippage did not appear to impact wound healing, there was indication that it may have influenced patient preference in favour of the two-layer system and potentially impacted patients' HRQoL.

Research findings and professional concerns that patients still experience pain and tissue trauma at dressing changes led specialist nurses to develop a postal questionnaire to elicit the views of 1000 nurses with an interest in wound management. The questionnaire asked practitioners to identify the primary considerations underpinning their approach to pain and tissue trauma at dressing changes, the strategies they adopted, and the factors which determined their treatment choices. The higher than anticipated response rate (37%) illustrates the importance nurses attach to this aspect of practice. The practitioners' main considerations during dressing changes were the need to prevent trauma to the wound (47%) and to avoid causing the patient pain (34%). Significantly, 81% noticed that patients experienced most pain when dressing products were removed, highlighting the need to re-emphasise the principles of moist wound healing. A total of 225 respondents (60%) were aware of dressings specifically designed to prevent pain and trauma during dressing changes. Practitioners also had the freedom to use the product of choice all (61%) or most (36%) of the time. However, respondents also demonstrated confusion about the properties and availability of many dressings. Recommendations for practice include reviewing the number of dressings currently available, together with ongoing education and update on all wound management dressing products and related issues.