Debridement options for the interprofessional team.

ABSTRACT: Debridement is a core component of chronic wound management. Although various debridement methods exist, each carries a unique patient risk level. This article discusses the different normal tissue components that are critical to safe debridement practice, various methods of wound debridement for nurses, and the importance of an interprofessional team and consulting a wound specialist.

Debridement: Technical Considerations and Treatment Options for the Interprofessional Team.

GENERAL PURPOSE: To enhance the learner's chronic wound debridement competence as an interprofessional team member. TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant will:1. Differentiate healable, maintenance, and nonhealable wounds to create a holistic debridement treatment plan using the Wound Bed Preparation paradigm.2. Evaluate active debridement options including the potential need for an interprofessional referral or specialized investigations.3. Assess chronic wound debridement options.4. Analyze case studies for appropriate clinical application of debridement modalities.

Debridement is a critical component in the management of both acute and chronic wounds. Six reviewed methods of debridement exist, and specific techniques are more appropriate to match patient needs with available clinical resources. Accurate differentiation between healable, maintenance, and nonhealable wounds is paramount when determining whether a wound would benefit from debridement. Clinical assessment includes review of the patient's underlying medical conditions/ previous surgeries along with the history and progression of the wound. Awareness of the physiologic wound bed preparation components that contribute to the current wound status will direct treatment of the abnormal components. Optimal wound status includes complete healing or reduced abnormal wound-related symptoms or signs. Debridement competency requires an awareness of the six types of debridement, their clinical utility, and appropriate patient selection. Providers need to assess patients' wounds, triage them, and refer them as necessary to an interprofessional setting. For stalled but healable wounds, specialized testing may be necessary when managing patients who would benefit from more invasive or advanced forms of wound care. This article informs providers on the training and experience required for specific debridement techniques depending on the wound etiology.

Wound irrigation versus swabbing technique for cleansing noninfected chronic wounds: A systematic review of differences in bleeding, pain, infection, exudate, and necrotic tissue.

PURPOSE: To systematically summarize and review the existing literature to determine the difference between wound cleansing techniques, irrigation and swabbing, in relation to bleeding, pain, infection, necrotic tissue and exudate in non-infected chronic wounds including pressure injuries, venous and arterial leg ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers. METHODS: A systematic search of the electronic databases Ovid Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and EMBASE was performed to identify all relevant literature in English. The search also included systematic reviews as a method to obtain additional potential citations by manually searching the reference lists. Included studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: One study met eligibility criteria. Two hundred fifty six patients with wounds healing via secondary intention (n = 256) were included. Wound cleansing via swabbing technique was associated with increased perception of pain and increased rates of infection when compared to the irrigation group (93.4% versus 84.2% p = 0.02 and 5.2% versus 3.3% p = 0.44, respectively). Only a small proportion of this sample met the inclusion criteria, so the results are not considered externally valid. CONCLUSION: Wound cleansing remains a controversial topic. Despite calls for further research, there continues to remain a large gap in evidence to guide practice. Irrigation continues to replace swabbing in the management of chronic wounds, although evidence of improved outcomes is virtually nonexistent. Although the one study identified was of sound methodological quality, chronic wounds accounted for only a small percentage of the sample. Therefore, results are not generalizable to those with chronic wounds. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of basic wound cleansing techniques before considering more costly products.

Executive Summary: Debridement: Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for Nurses Developed by Nurses Specialized in Wound, Ostomy and Continence Canada (NSWOCC).

Debridement is described in the literature as having a high level of clinical risk and may result in patient harm when performed by untrained nurses. As a result, specialized knowledge, skills, and competencies are required to initiate, direct, and perform safe and effective debridement. This executive summary provides an overview of Debridement: Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for Nurses from the Nurses Specialized in Wound, Ostomy and Continence Canada (NSWOCC). The primary objective of these recommendations is to positively influence patient outcomes and enhance safety. The 12 recommendations place the safety of the patient and nurse at the forefront and highlight the educational, competency, certification, preceptor/mentorship, and legal requirements for nurses to initiate, direct, and perform all methods of debridement. We designed these recommendations to be circulated and implemented widely by nurses of various professional levels across the continuum of care and advocate for organizations and government agencies to clearly define debridement in their policies and legislative regulations.

Healing Rates of Venous Leg Ulcers Managed With Compression Therapy: A Secondary Analysis of Data.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore average time to heal for patients with venous leg ulcers (VLUs) receiving standard of care that included compression and advanced wound dressings. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of an existing electronic database. SUBJECT AND SETTINGS: A convenience sample consisting of 1323 patients with VLUs from various community care sectors (homecare and clinics) across Canada. METHODS: The Wound Studies database used in the analysis consisted of data from 6 studies conducted prospectively between 1999 and 2009 in which the treatment and delivery of care for all lower leg ulcers (venous, arterial, and mixed) in Canada was examined. From these studies, only patients with VLUs, with an ankle-brachial pressure index of greater than 0.8, and surface area measurements of the ulcers at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months were included. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the proportion of patients who achieved closure at 3 and 6 months and explore the weekly and monthly healing rates for those who did and did not achieve closure. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for healing. RESULTS: A total of 777 patients (mean age 69 years) met inclusion criteria. The proportion of patients who achieved closure at 3 and 6 months was 42.2% and 48.6%, respectively. Of the participants who achieved wound closure, monthly mean healing rate, measured by percentage of reduction in surface area, was 33.4% (0.56 cm, SD 1.4 [median 0.15 cm]) through month 3, and 31.0% (0.70 cm, SD 1.6 [median 0.08 cm]) through month 6. The overall monthly surface area reduction was 30%. CONCLUSION: Study findings suggest a monthly surface area reduction of 30% provides a baseline healing rate for VLUs managed with compression therapy and advanced dressings. Findings also suggest standard of care is not sufficient for healing in over 50% of the population, as the proportion of those who achieved closure at 3 and 6 months was 42.2% and 48.6%, respectively.