Management and outcomes among patients with hard-to-heal ulcers in Sweden: a national mapping of data from medical records, focusing on diagnoses, ulcer healing, ulcer treatment time, pain and prescription of analgesics and antibiotics.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether patients with hard-to-heal ulcers in Sweden were treated according to an aetiological diagnosis and to explore ulcer healing, treatment time, ulcer-related pain and the prescription of analgesics and antibiotics. DESIGN: A national mapping of data from the patients' medical records, between April 2021 and March 2023. SETTING: Data from medical records for patients with hard-to-heal ulcers from a randomised clustered sample of two units per level of care and region. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with hard-to-heal ulcers treated in primary, community and specialist care, public or private, within units covering all 21 regions in Sweden. OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive analysis of data from the patients' medical records. RESULTS: A total of 2470 patients from 168 units were included, of which 39% were treated in primary care, 24% in community care and 37% in specialist care. A total of 49% of patients were treated without an aetiological diagnosis. Healing occurred in 37% of patients and ulcer-related pain was experienced by 1224 patients (50%). Antibiotics were given to 56% of the patients. Amputation occurred in 5% and 11% were deceased. CONCLUSION: Only 51% of patients with hard-to-heal ulcers had a documented aetiological ulcer diagnosis, which means that approximately 20 000 patients in Sweden might receive suboptimal treatment. Future research needs to explore why so many patients are undiagnosed and how to improve diagnosis, which could lead to faster healing and shorter treatment times.

Antibiotic prescription using a digital decision support system: a register-based study of patients with hard-to-heal ulcers in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate differences in antibiotic prescription for patients with hard-to-heal ulcers assessed using a digital decision support system (DDSS) compared with those assessed without using a DDSS. A further aim was to examine predictors for antibiotic prescription. DESIGN: Register-based study. SETTING: In 2018-2019, healthcare staff in primary, community and specialist care in Sweden tested a DDSS that offers a mobile application for data and photograph transfer to a platform for multidisciplinary consultation and automatic transmission of data to the Registry of Ulcer Treatment (RUT). Register-based data from patients assessed and diagnosed using the DDSS combined with the RUT was compared with register-based data from patients whose assessments were merely registered in the RUT. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 117 patients assessed using the DDSS combined with the RUT (the study group) were compared with 1784 patients whose assessments were registered in the RUT without using the DDSS (the control group). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The differences in antibiotic prescription were analysed using the Pearson's χ2 test. A logistic regression analysis was used to check for influencing factors on antibiotic prescription. RESULTS: Patients assessed using a DDSS in combination with the RUT had significantly lower antibiotic prescription than patients entered in the RUT without using the DDSS (8% vs 26%) (p=0.002) (only healed ulcers included). Predictors for antibiotic prescription were diabetes; long healing time; having an arterial, neuropathic or malignant ulcer. CONCLUSIONS: A DDSS with data and photograph transfer that enables multidisciplinary communication appears to be a suitable tool to reduce antibiotic prescription for patients with hard-to-heal ulcers.

Clinical evaluation with long-term follow-up of patients with pressure ulcers in one Swedish county.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a screening, skin examination and risk assessment of patients with pressure ulcers (PUs) in one Swedish county (inpatient, primary and community care) with follow-up after six months to investigate ulcer healing, frequency of amputation and mortality rate linked to preventive measures. METHOD: The methodology recommended by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel was used. Screening, risk assessment and skin examination were performed during March 2017. The modified Norton scale was used to assess PU risk, with a score of ≤20 indicating presence of risk. A research questionnaire was used to document prevention and treatment. Follow-up was performed after six months, during September 2017. The same research questionnaire was used to capture the current situation of the patients, including ulcer healing, frequency of amputation, and mortality rate. RESULTS: Screening covered 464 patients: 303 hospitalised, 68 in community care, and 93 in primary care. A total of 110 patients-55 at risk of PU and 55 with PUs, the majority of which were category 2-4 PUs-were included in the study. At follow-up, 67% were treated in community care, 32% in primary care, and 1% in hospital. Mortality rate for patients with PUs was 44%. Of the remaining 31 patients, 17 had unhealed PUs, 10 had healed PUs, two had undergone amputation, and complete follow-up data was missing in the remaining two patients. CONCLUSION: These results reflect the complex situation of an aged and frail patient group, including a lack of preventive measures and follow-up routines in community and primary care.

Comparing video consultation with inperson assessment for Swedish patients with hard-to-heal ulcers: registry-based studies of healing time and of waiting time.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate differences in ulcer healing time and waiting time between video consultation and inperson assessment for patients with hard-to-heal ulcers. SETTING: Patients treated at Blekinge Wound Healing Centre, a primary care centre covering the whole of Blekinge county (150 000 inhabitants), were compared with patients registered and treated according to the Registry of Ulcer Treatment, a Swedish national web-based quality registry. PARTICIPANTS: In the study for analysing ulcer healing time, the study group consisted of 100 patients diagnosed through video consultation between October 2014 and September 2016. The control group for analysing healing time consisted of 1888 patients diagnosed through inperson assessment during the same period. In the study for analysing waiting time, the same study group (n=100) was compared with 100 patients diagnosed through inperson assessment. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in ulcer healing time were analysed using the log-rank test. Differences in waiting time were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Median healing time was 59 days (95% CI 40 to 78) in the study group and 82 days (95% CI 75 to 89) in the control group (P<0.001). Median waiting time was 25 days (range: 1-83 days) in the study group and 32 days (range: 3-294 days) for patients diagnosed through inperson assessment (P=0.017). There were no significant differences between the study group and the control group regarding age, gender or ulcer size. CONCLUSIONS: Healing time and waiting time were significantly shorter for patients diagnosed through video consultation compared with those diagnosed through inperson assessment.

Ulcer pain in patients with venous leg ulcers related to antibiotic treatment and compression therapy.

The aim of this study was to compare venous leg ulcer patients with and without ulcer pain to see whether ulcer pain affected the use of antibiotic treatment and compression therapy throughout healing. A total of 431 patients with venous leg ulcers were included during the study period. Every patient was registered in a national quality registry for patients with hard-to-heal leg, foot, and pressure ulcers. A high incidence of ulcer pain (57%) was found when the patients entered the study. Patients with ulcer pain had been treated more extensively with antibiotics both before and during the study period. Throughout healing there was a significant reduction of antibiotic use among patients in the 'no pain' group, from 44% to 23% (P=0.008). There was no significant difference between the two groups concerning compression therapy (85% vs. 88%), but 12% of patients in the 'pain' group did not get their prescribed compression compared with 6% of patients in the 'no pain' group. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of ulcer duration, ulcer size or healing time. This study shows a high incidence of ulcer pain, confirming that pain has a great impact on patients with venous leg ulcers. Results further suggest that the presence of ulcer pain increases the prescription of antibiotics but does not affect the use of compression therapy. Several advantages were found from using a national quality registry. The registry is a valuable clinical tool showing the importance of accurate diagnosis and effective treatment.