Impact on quantitative fit-test results after application of prophylactic hydrocolloid dressing under N95 respirators.

OBJECTIVE: Discomfort and device-related pressure injury (DRPI) caused by N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are common. The use of prophylactic hydrocolloid dressings is one of the strategies that may improve comfort and reduce DRPI. In this study, we investigated the impact of these dressings on N95 respirator fit. METHODS: We performed a repeat quantitative fit testing through the Respiratory Protection Program on 134 healthcare workers (HCWs), who applied hydrocolloid dressings on the bridge of their nose under the N95 FFRs that they passed the initial fit test with, but reported discomfort with the FFR. RESULTS: With the hydrocolloid dressings in place, the fit-test pass rate for the semirigid cup style (3M 1860) was 94% (108 of 115); for the the vertical flat-fold style (BYD), the pass rate was 85% (44 of 52); for the duckbill style (BSN medical ProShield and Halyard Fluidshield), the pass rate was 81% (87 of 108); and for the 3-panel flat-fold style (3M Aura) N95 FFRs, the pass rate was 100% (3 of 3). There was a statistically significant reduction in the overall fit factors for both the vertical flat-fold and duckbill type N95 respirators after the application of hydrocolloid dressings. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrocolloid dressings are likely to disturb the mask seal for nonrigid-style N95 FFRs, particularly the vertical flat-fold style and the duckbill style N95 FFRs. Given the risk of mask seal disturbance of N95 respirators as shown in this study, we advocate that any HCW requiring the use of prophylactic dressings should undergo repeat quantitative fit testing with the dressing in place prior to using the dressing and mask in combination.

Modified telehealth for care of chronic wounds during the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A rapid literature review of alternative care modalities.

Due to the changes in delivering medical care during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, such as the heavy reliance on telehealth, it is worth exploring if this is suitable when treating complex wounds. A literature rapid review was performed to explore the existing evidence around alternative service delivery modalities. While there are organisations that have successful telehealth systems and infrastructure, for services that do not already widely use telehealth it is difficult to implement a standardised system in the current state of emergency. The evidence reviewed demonstrates that telehealth appears to currently have a limited place in chronic wound management; therefore, standardisation on determining suitability in conjunction with evaluation of telehealth during this period is needed to shape implementation of telehealth systems in the future.

IGNITING THE POTENTIAL OF WOUND CARE CHAMPIONS.

Melbourne Health is celebrating the 13th year of a wound care champion program that has transformed 85 ward nurses into a unique group of Wound Resource Nurses (WReNs) to meet the challenges and demands of implementing evidence based wound care practices.

USING POSITIVE CLINICAL LEADERSHIP TO SUPPORT A CULTURE OF PRESSURE INJURY PREVENTION.

The Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH) is an 800 bed tertiary referral service within metropolitan Melbourne. While the hospital acquired pressure injury (HAPI) incidence rate is low (2.5%), there is still work to be done in this area.

The cost-benefit of using soft silicone multilayered foam dressings to prevent sacral and heel pressure ulcers in trauma and critically ill patients: a within-trial analysis of the Border Trial.

Little is known about the cost-benefit of soft silicone foam dressings in pressure ulcer (PU) prevention among critically ill patients in the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU). A randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of soft silicone foam dressings in preventing sacral and heel PUs was undertaken among 440 critically ill patients in an acute care hospital. Participants were randomly allocated either to an intervention group with prophylactic dressings applied to the sacrum and heels in the ED and changed every 3 days in the ICU or to a control group with standard PU prevention care provided during their ED and ICU stay. The results showed a significant reduction of PU incidence rates in the intervention group (P = 0·001). The intervention cost was estimated to be AU$36·61 per person based on an intention-to-treat analysis, but this was offset by lower downstream costs associated with PU treatment (AU$1103·52). Therefore, the average net cost of the intervention was lower than that of the control (AU$70·82 versus AU$144·56). We conclude that the use of soft silicone multilayered foam dressings to prevent sacral and heel PUs among critically ill patients results in cost savings in the acute care hospital.

A randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of soft silicone multi-layered foam dressings in the prevention of sacral and heel pressure ulcers in trauma and critically ill patients: the border trial.

The prevention of hospital acquired pressure ulcers in critically ill patients remains a significant clinical challenge. The aim of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of multi-layered soft silicone foam dressings in preventing intensive care unit (ICU) pressure ulcers when applied in the emergency department to 440 trauma and critically ill patients. Intervention group patients (n = 219) had Mepilex(®) Border Sacrum and Mepilex(®) Heel dressings applied in the emergency department and maintained throughout their ICU stay. Results revealed that there were significantly fewer patients with pressure ulcers in the intervention group compared to the control group (5 versus 20, P = 0·001). This represented a 10% difference in incidence between the groups (3·1% versus 13·1%) and a number needed to treat of ten patients to prevent one pressure ulcer. Overall there were fewer sacral (2 versus 8, P = 0·05) and heel pressure ulcers (5 versus 19, P = 0·002) and pressure injuries overall (7 versus 27, P = 0·002) in interventions than in controls. The time to injury survival analysis indicated that intervention group patients had a hazard ratio of 0·19 (P = 0·002) compared to control group patients. We conclude that multi-layered soft silicone foam dressings are effective in preventing pressure ulcers in critically ill patients when applied in the emergency department prior to ICU transfer.