Whole versus hole: enabling community nurses to implement holistic wound care.

OBJECTIVE: To improve wound-related quality of life (QoL) in clients with hard-to-heal wounds in their lower limbs and to increase referrals to multidisciplinary teams in the management of care for these clients. METHOD: This was a quality improvement project with a two-group pretest-posttest interventional evaluation design. We implemented a package of interventions including the WounDS app, education related to wound care, and client engagement through a QoL self-assessment. Wound-related QoL was measured using the Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule and referrals to the multidisciplinary team were tracked through chart audits. We explored nurses' experiences with the interventions through semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Clients' average ratings for 'wellbeing', 'physical symptoms and daily living', and 'overall QoL' improved by 27%, 38% and 54%, respectively. The number of referrals increased by 78% post intervention. Nurses described the interventions as effective strategies that motivated them to implement a holistic approach to care. CONCLUSION: The project was successful in creating a culture shift to practice holistic wound care. This package of interventions (WounDS app, education and client self-assessment of QoL) led to improvements in the QoL of clients with hard-to-heal wounds. Further studies are needed to generalise the findings. Strategies for sustainability include forming a champion group and providing the education and decision supports based on nurses' educational needs assessment.

Nimble Approach: fast, adapting, calculating and ethically mindful approach to managing colorectal cancer screening programmes during a pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a conceptual framework that provides understanding of the challenges encountered and the adaptive approaches taken by organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: This was a qualitative case study of international CRC screening programmes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with programme managers/leaders and programme experts, researchers and clinical leaders of large, population-based screening programmes. Data analysis, using elements of grounded theory, as well as cross-cases analysis was conducted by two experienced qualitative researchers. RESULTS: 19 participants were interviewed from seven programmes in North America, Europe and Australasia. A conceptual framework ('Nimble Approach') was the key outcome of the analysis. Four concepts constitute this approach to managing CRC screening programmes during COVID-19: Fast (meeting the need to make decisions and communicate quickly), Adapting (flexibly and creatively managing testing/colonoscopy capacity, access and backlogs), Calculating (modelling and actively monitoring programmes to inform decision-making and support programme quality) and Ethically Mindful (considering ethical conundrums emerging from programme responses). Highly integrated programmes, those with highly integrated communication networks, and that managed greater portions of the screening process seemed best positioned to respond to the crisis. CONCLUSIONS: The Nimble Approach has potentially broad applications; it can be deployed to effectively respond to programme-specific challenges or manage CRC programmes during future pandemics, other health crises or emergencies.