Patient experiences of, and preferences for, surgical wound care education.

The aim of this study was to describe patients' experiences of, and preferences for, surgical wound care discharge education and how these experiences predicted their ability to self-manage their surgical wounds. A telephone survey of 270 surgical patients was conducted across two hospitals two weeks after discharge. Patients preferred verbal (n = 255, 94.8%) and written surgical wound education (n = 178, 66.2%) from medical (n = 229, 85.4%) and nursing staff (n = 211, 78.7%) at discharge. The most frequent education content that patients received was information about follow-up appointments (n = 242, 89.6%) and who to contact in the community with wound care concerns (n = 233, 86.6%). Using logistic regression, patients who perceived that they participated in surgical wound care decisions were 6.5 times more likely to state that they were able to manage their wounds at home. Also, patients who agreed that medical and/or nursing staff discussed wound pain management were 3.1 times more likely to report being able to manage their surgical wounds at home. Only 40% (107/270) of patients actively participated in wound-related decision-making during discharge education. These results uncovered patient preferences, which could be used to optimise discharge education practices. Embedding patient participation into clinical workflows may enhance patients' self-management practices once home.

Printing in a Pandemic: 3D printing solutions for healthcare during COVID-19. A Protocol for a PRISMA systematic review.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic had an unprecedented global socioeconomic impact. Responses to pandemics include strategies to accumulate vast stockpiles of vital medical equipment. In such times of desperation, 3D-printing could be a life-saving alternative. Methods: We undertook a PRISMA systematic review of 3D printing solutions in response to COVID-19 utilising the PICO methodology. The objectives were to identify the uses of 3D printing during the COVID-19 pandemic, determine the extent of preclinical testing, comparison to commercial alternatives, presence of regulatory approvals and replicability regarding the description of the printing parameters and the availability of the print file. Results: Literature searches of MEDLINE (OVID interface)/ PubMed identified 601 studies. Of these, 10 studies fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Reported uses of 3D printing included personal protective equipment (PPE), nasopharyngeal swabs and adjunctive anaesthetic equipment. Few studies undertook formal safety and efficacy testing before clinical use with only one study comparing to the commercial equivalent. Six articles made their model print files available for wider use. Conclusion: We describe a protocol for a systematic review of 3D-printed healthcare solutions in response to COVID-19. This remains a viable method of producing vital healthcare equipment when supply chains are exhausted. We hope that this will serve as a summary of innovative 3D-printed solutions during the peak of the pandemic and also highlight concerns and omissions regarding safety and efficacy testing that should be addressed urgently in preparation for a subsequent resurgences and future pandemics.