Cost-effectiveness of superabsorbent wound dressing versus standard of care in patients with moderate-to-highly exuding leg ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness/utility of a superabsorbent wound dressing (Zetuvit Plus Silicone) versus the current standard of care (SoC) dressings, from the NHS perspective in England, in patients with moderate-to-high exudating leg ulcers. METHOD: A model-based economic evaluation was conducted to analyse the cost-effectiveness/utility of a new intervention. We used a microsimulation state-transition model with a time horizon of six months and a cycle length of one week. The model uses a combination of incidence base and risk prediction approach to inform transition probabilities. All clinical efficiency, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cost and resource use inputs were informed by conducting a systematic review of UK specific literature. RESULTS: Treatment with the superabsorbent dressing leads to a total expected cost per patient for a six month period of £2887, associated with 15.933 expected quality adjusted life weeks and 10.9% healing rate. When treated with SoC, the total expected cost per patient for a six month period is £3109, 15.852 expected quality adjusted life weeks and 8% healing rate. Therefore, the superabsorbent dressing leads to an increase in quality-adjusted life weeks, an increase in healing rate by 2.9% and a cost-saving of £222 per single average patient over six months. Results of several scenario analyses, one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of base-case results. The probabilistic analysis confirmed that, in any combination of variable values, the superabsorbent dressing leads to cost saving results. CONCLUSION: According to the model prediction, the superabsorbent dressing leads to an increase in health benefits and a decrease in associated costs of treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of TLC-sucrose octasulfate versus control dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes is one of the most widespread diseases in Germany. Common complications are diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), which are associated with a cost-intensive treatment and serious adverse events, such as infections, amputations. This cost-effectiveness analysis compares two treatment options for patients with DFU: a TLC-NOSF dressing versus a neutral dressing, assessed through a European double-blind randomised controlled trial (RCT), Explorer. METHODS: The evaluation of the clinical outcomes was associated to direct costs (costs for dressings, nursing time, hospitalisation etc.) of both dressings, from the perspective of the statutory health insurance in Germany. Due to the long mean healing time of a DFU, the observation period was extended from 20 to 100 weeks in a Markov model. RESULTS: After 20 weeks, and with complete closure as a primary endpoint, the model revealed direct treatment costs for DFU of €2,864.21 when treated with a TLC-NOSF dressing compared with €2,958.69 with the neutral control dressing (cost-effectiveness: €6,017.25 versus €9,928.49). In the Markov model (100 weeks) the costs for the TLC-NOSF dressing were €5,882.87 compared with €8,449.39 with the neutral dressing (cost-effectiveness: €6,277.58 versus €10,375.56). The robustness of results was underlined by several sensitivity analyses for varying assumptions. The frequency of weekly dressing changes had the most significant influence in terms of parameter uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Overall, the treatment of DFU with a TLC-NOSF dressing is supported from a health economic perspective, because both the treatment costs and the cost-effectiveness were superior compared with the neutral wound dressing.

A Comparison of Three Dressing Methods for Pilonidal Sinus Surgery Wound Healing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different dressing methods on the wound healing process after pilonidal sinus surgery. METHODS: In this clinical trial, 60 patients undergoing pilonidal sinus surgery were randomly assigned to one of three groups. In the first group, hydrogel or alginate and hydrocolloid compounds were used as a standard occlusive dressing method. A modified dressing method was used for the second group, in which transparent hydrocolloid films were replaced by Vaseline gauze. The third group was treated using gauze swabs soaked in normal saline. The length and depth of the studied wounds were recorded once a week for a month. During dressing changes, patient pain was recorded using an 11-point numeric rating scale. The collected data were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistical methods. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in wound length after 2 weeks in all three groups (P < .05), and the pain experienced by the first and second groups was significantly lower than the third group. However, the modified method used for the second group was associated with a lower cost. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the beneficial results of using modern dressings for wound healing and reducing the severity of associated pain, providers may want to consider using modified wound dressings after pilonidal sinus surgery. Study authors recommend that providers receive training on how to use these products.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a hydration response technology dressing in the treatment of venous leg ulcers in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) cause significant pain and suffering for patients. Additionally, they place considerable financial and service burden on the National Health Service (NHS). A large proportion of VLUs do not heal within the standard time frame of 16-24 weeks, resulting in static wounds which commonly have issues with increasing exudate production. As the NHS continues to face times of austerity, services need to find solutions to be able to reduce costs and release nursing time while maintaining standards of care. Cutimed Sorbion Sachet S, a hydration response technology dressing (HRTD), is a treatment option for the management of patients with a VLU. The objective of this study was to provide an update of the health economic analysis of HRTD in comparison with relevant comparators in the UK with current cost data. METHOD: HRTD was compared against four different dressings, Zetuvit Plus (a super absorbent polymer dressing SAP), DryMax extra (a superabsorbent dressing, SADM), KerraMax Care (superabsorbent dressing, SAKM) and Eclypse (superabsorbent dressing, SAE) from a cost-effectiveness perspective. Clinical data were derived from literature and expert opinion. Cost input was utilised based on publicly available data and literature. The average patient in the model is assumed to be 65 years with a diagnosed VLU. It is assumed that patients in the different treatment arms have the same background mortality, hence the endpoint mortality is not included in the model. The analysis is based on a deterministic Markov model derived from Harding et al. with weekly cycles. The following assumptions are made: first, all patients start in a static health state with a non-healed but non-progressing VLU. It is assumed in the model that patients wounds can transition to a deteriorating state or one where a wound is improving or could progress. Additionally, VLUs could be healed from a progressed wound (i.e. improved wound), or they could develop into a severe wound with complications (infections) to be treated in hospitals. The time frame for the analysis was fixed for one year and no re-occurence after healing was assumed to happen. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrates health economic dominance of HRDT being more effective and cost-saving against all analysed comparators. When using literature-based input values, the incrementally higher healing rates for HRDT are 11.04 months (versus SAP), 29.04 months (versus SADM), 1.68 months (versus SAKM) and 11.04 months (versus SAE). Cost savings per patient were £37.60 versus SAP, £171.68 versus SADM, £3.13 versus SAKM and £43.63 versus SAE. CONCLUSION: Clinical benefits and cost savings increase when real-life practice assumptions, based on expert opinion, are included. Based on the underlying health economic model, HRDT is more effective and less costly than other comparative products in VLUs in the UK.

Cost comparison of pressure ulcer preventive dressings: hydrocolloid dressing versus transparent polyurethane film.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the costs of using a transparent polyurethane film (PF) and hydrocolloid dressing (HD) in the prevention of pressure ulcers (PUs). METHOD: This descriptive, observational, longitudinal, comparative study was conducted in the intensive care units, coronary care unit and medical clinic of a charity hospital in Brazil. Data were collected during a 30-day study period, consisting of physical examination, assessment of risk factors for PU development and application of the Braden scale, which were performed at inclusion in the study and once daily during hospitalisation. Either PF or HD was applied bilaterally in the sacral and trochanteric regions for prevention of PUs in patients at a moderate to high risk of PUs according to the Braden scale, and costs of using PU preventive dressings were estimated. RESULTS: The mean total costs per dressing change per patient when using the HD and PF to prevent PUs were 413.60 BRL and 74.04 BRL, respectively. There were significant between-group differences in mean costs for all variables, except for saline solution and nurse-technician services. CONCLUSION: Results showed that the mean cost per dressing change per patient was lower when using the transparent PF than when using the HD.

Comparing the efficacies of alginate, foam, hydrocolloid, hydrofiber, and hydrogel dressings in the management of diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis examining how to dress for success.

Diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers are chronic wounds frequently encountered by dermatologists. Choosing appropriate wound dressings can effectively promote wound healing and potentially reduce morbidity and financial burden experienced by patients. The objective of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate wound healing efficacies of synthetic active dressings in diabetic foot ulcer and venous leg ulcer management. For data collection, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and clinicaltrials.gov online databases were searched from database inception to 10 May 2015. Fixed and random effects modeling were used to calculate pooled risk ratios for complete ulcer healing from pairwise dressing comparisons. The results of our review showed moderate-quality level evidence that hydrogels were more effective in healing diabetic foot ulcers than basic wound contact dressings (RR 1.80 [95% CI, 1.27-2.56]). The other dressing comparisons showed no statistically significant differences between the interventions examined in terms of achieving complete diabetic foot ulcer healing. Non-adherent dressings were more cost-effective than hydrofiber dressings for diabetic foot ulcers in terms of mean total cost per patient of the dressings themselves. All venous leg ulcer pairwise dressing comparisons showed equivalent dressing efficacies in terms of promoting complete ulcer healing. Overall, most synthetic active dressings and traditional wound dressings are equally efficacious in treating diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers. For treating diabetic foot ulcers, hydrogels are more efficacious than basic wound contact dressings, and non-adherent dressings are more cost-effective than hydrofiber dressings. Ultimately, dressing choice should be tailored to the wound and the patient.

A cost and clinical effectiveness analysis among moist wound healing dressings versus traditional methods in home care patients with pressure ulcers.

The aim of the study was a cost and clinical effectiveness analysis between moist wound healing dressings and gauze in a homecare set up for the treatment of stage III and IV pressure ulcers up to complete healing. In addition, we assessed the overall economic burden on the Healthcare System. Treatment method for each patient was chosen randomly by using sealed opaque envelopes. The authors monitored the healing progress and recorded treatment costs without interfering with the treatment process. The healing progress was estimated by using surface measurement transparent films. To estimate treatment costs, the authors took into account labor costs, cost of dressings, as well the cost of other materials such as cleansing gauzes, normal saline, syringes, examination gloves, antiseptics and adhesive tape. The patient group under treatment with moist wound healing dressings consisted of 27 men and 20 women aged 75.1 ± 8,6 and had an average ulcer surface of 43.5 ± 30.70 cm(2) ; the patient group under treatment with gauze comprised 25 men and 23 women aged 77.02 ± 8.02 and had an average ulcer surface 41.52 ± 29.41 cm(2) (p = 0.25, 95% CI, Student's t test). The average healing time for the moist wound healing dressings group' was 85.56 ± 52.09 days, while 121.4 ± 52.21 days for the "gauze group" (p = 0.0001, 95% CI, Student's t test). The dressing change frequency per patient was reduced in the "moist wound healing dressings group," 49.5 ± 29.61, compared with a dressing change frequency per patient of 222.6 ± 101.86 for the "gauze group" (p = 0.0001, 95% CI, Student's t test). The use of moist wound healing dressings had a lower total treatment cost of 1,351 € per patient compared with, the use of gauzes (3,888 €).

Avaliação de custo-efetividade de dois tipos de curativos para prevenção de úlcera por pressão / Cost-effectiveness of two types of dressing for prevention of pressure ulcer

Objetivo: Analisar a relação custo-efetividade de dois tipos de curativos para a prevenção de úlcera por pressão na região sacral. Métodos : Pesquisa de análise secundária, comparativa, que incluiu 25 pacientes dos quais dez utilizaram a cobertura hidrocoloide e 15 o filme transparente, para prevenção de úlcera por pressão na região sacral. Foram contabilizados custos de aquisição com cada tipo de cobertura; verificados desfechos intermediário e final; e foi estimada a relação custo-efetividade. Resultados : A relação custo-efetividade do hidrocoloide para o desfecho intermediário foi de R$174,68 enquanto do filme transparente foi de R$45,74. Para o desfecho final, essa relação foi de respectivamente R$272,00 e R$28,97. Conclusão : O filme transparente foi mais custo-efetivo do que o hidrocoloide na prevenção de úlcera por pressão sacral.

Objective: To analyze the cost-effectiveness relationship of two types of dressing for prevention of sacral pressure ulcer. Methods : This secondary analysis and comparative study included 25 patients. Of these, 10 used a hydrocolloid dressing and 15 used a transparent film dressing for prevention of sacral pressure ulcer. We measured costs of each dressing type, verified intermediate and final results, and estimated the cost-effectiveness relationship. Results : The cost-effectiveness relationships for the intermediate results were R$174.68 for the hydrocolloid dressing and R$45.75 for the transparent film dressing. For the final result, the values were R$272.00 and R$28.97, respectively. Conclusion : For sacral pressure ulcers, transparent film dressing was cost-effective compared with hydrocolloid dressing.

A randomised study of NPWT closure versus alginate dressings in peri-vascular groin infections: quality of life, pain and cost.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the vacuum assisted wound closure (VAC) system (negative pressure wound therapy; NPWT) and alginate wound dressings in terms of quality of life (QoL), pain resource use and cost in patients with deep peri-vascular groin infection after vascular surgery. METHOD: Patients with deep peri-vascular groin infection (Szilagyi grade III) were included and randomised to NPWT or alginate therapy. EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) and brief pain inventory (BPI) were used to evaluate QoL and pain, respectively. RESULTS: Wound healing time until complete skin epithelialisation was shorter in the NPWT (n=9) compared to the alginate group (n=7), median 57 and 104 days, respectively (p=0.026). No difference was recorded in QoL and pain between the groups at study start and the second assessment. QoL analysis within groups between time points, showed that patients in NPWT groups improved in EQ-5D domains, 'self-care' (p= 0.034), 'usual activities' (p=0.046); EQ-5D index value (p=0.046) and EQ-VAS (p=0.028). Patients in the NPWT group reported significantly less pain 'affecting their relations with other people' and 'sleep' between time points. The NPWT group had significantly fewer dressing changes compared to the alginate group (p<0.001). The median frequency of wound dressing changes outside hospital was 20 (IQR 6-29) in the NPWT group (n=9), compared to 48 (IQR 42-77) in the alginate group (n=8; p=0.004). The saved personnel time for wound care in the first week for the NPWT group, compared with the alginate group, was 4.5 hours per week per nurse. The total hospitalised care cost was 83-87% of the total cost in both groups. CONCLUSION: NPWT therapy in patients with deep peri-vascular groin infection can be regarded as the dominant strategy due to improved clinical outcome with equal cost and quality of life measures.

A budget impact analysis comparing a Hydrofiber® ; dressing to an alginate dressing in managing exuding venous leg ulcers in France.

An Excel model was developed to compare total costs (including primary and secondary dressings only) of Hydrofiber(®) ; dressing (2010 branded price) versus an alginate dressing (generic or branded price) in managing exuding venous leg ulcers considering mean wear time and mean duration of exudate management phase, from the French Social Security perspective over 5 years (2011-2015). Budget impact (based on prevalence of venous leg ulcers in France) was estimated as the difference between scenario 1 (Hydrofiber(®) ; versus alginate dressing usage proportion increasing slightly per year) and Scenario2 (proportion remaining at 2010 levels). Annual costs and net savings per patient for the dressings were calculated in analyses 1 and 2. Analysis 1 (28-day mean exudate management phase for both Hydrofiber(®) ; and alginate dressing groups): total costs 66·82€ Hydrofiber(®) ;, 70·08€ generic alginate, 77·0€ branded alginate; net savings 3·26€ and 10·18€ for Hydrofiber(®) ; versus generic and branded alginate. Analysis 2 (mean exudate management phase of 22·2 versus 28 days for Hydrofiber(®) ; versus alginate): total costs 52·92€, 70·08€ and 77·0€, and net savings 17·10€ and 24·02€, accordingly. Total cost savings (budget impact scenario 1 minus scenario 2): Analysis 1 - 223 107€ and 696 304€ for Hydrofiber(®) ; versus generic and branded alginate dressings, respectively; Analysis 2 - 1 169 845€ and 1 643 042€ accordingly. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results are reliable. This conservative analysis shows that effective exudate management using Hydrofiber(®) ; dressing can produce sizeable cost savings.

Effectiveness of Aloe Vera gel compared with 1% silver sulphadiazine cream as burn wound dressing in second degree burns.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of Aloe Vera gel compared with 1% silver sulfadiazine cream as a burn dressing for the treatment of superficial and partial thickness burns. METHODS: This Interventional Comparative study was carried out at the Burn unit and Plastic surgery department, Nishtar Hospital Multan, Pakistan from July 2008 to December 2010. A total of 50 patients with superficial and partial thickness burns were divided into two equal groups randomly by consecutive sampling method, one group was dressed with Aloe Vera gel while the other was treated with 1% silversulphadiazine cream, and the results regarding duration of wound epithelialization, pain relief and cost of treatment were compared. RESULTS: In patients treated with Aloe Vera gel, healing of burn wounds were remarkably early than those patients treated with 1% silver sulfadiazine. All the patients of Aloe Vera group were relieved of pain earlier than those patients who were treated with SSD. CONCLUSION: Thermal burns patients dressed with Aloe Vera gel showed advantage compared to those dressed with SSD regarding early wound epithelialization, earlier pain relief and cost-effectiveness.

Occlusive vs gauze dressings for local wound care in surgical patients: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare effectiveness and costs of gauze-based vs occlusive, moist-environment dressing principles. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Two hundred eighty-five hospitalized surgical patients with open wounds. INTERVENTION: Patients received occlusive (ie, foams, alginates, hydrogels, hydrocolloids, hydrofibers, or films) or gauze-based dressings until their wounds were completely healed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end points were complete wound healing, pain during dressing changes, and costs. Secondary end point was length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Time to complete wound healing did not differ significantly between occlusive (median, 66 days; interquartile range [IQR], 29-133 days) and gauze-based dressing groups (median, 45 days; IQR, 26-106 days; log-rank P = .31). Postoperative wounds (62% of the wounds included) healed significantly (P = .02) quicker using gauze dressings (median, 45 days; IQR, 22-93 days vs median, 72 days; IQR, 36-132 days). Median pain scores were low and similar in the occlusive (0.90; IQR, 0.29-2.34) and the gauze (0.64; IQR, 0.22-1.95) groups (P = .32). Daily costs of occlusive materials were significantly higher (occlusive, euro6.34 [US $9.95] vs gauze, euro1.85 [US $2.90]; P < .001), but nursing time costs per day were significantly higher when gauze was used (occlusive, euro1.28 [US $2.01] vs gauze, euro2.41 [US $3.78]; P < .001). Total cost for local wound care per patient per day during hospitalization was euro7.48 (US $11.74) in the occlusive group and euro3.98 (US $6.25) in the gauze-based group (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: The occlusive, moist-environment dressing principle in the clinical surgical setting does not lead to quicker wound healing or less pain than gauze dressings. The lower costs of less frequent dressing changes do not balance the higher costs of occlusive materials. Trial Registration trialregister.nl Identifier: 56264738.

Prospective evaluation of occlusive hydrocolloid dressing versus conventional gauze dressing regarding the healing effect after abdominal operations: randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare occlusive hydrocolloid dressing (OHD; Karayahesive) and gauze dressing (GD) with regard to the cost and incidence of wound infection after abdominal surgery. METHODS: A total of 134 patients who underwent incisions were randomized to have their wounds dressed with either OHD or GD. OHD was left on until the sutures were removed, and GD was changed everyday postoperatively. The cost calculations represent the number of dressings required for each treatment group as determined by the frequency of required dressing changes and cost per dressing. RESULTS: There were no differences between the groups regarding the need for dressings to be changed or the incidence of infection. OHD was less expensive and complicated than GD, which needed to be changed everyday (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that OHD is less expensive to use than GD, and the risk of wound infection is not increased compared to GD.

Clinical evaluation of hydrocolloid dressings for neurosurgical wounds.

BACKGROUND: Empirical methods in postoperative wound care have been performed by individual neurosurgeons. We evaluated a hydrocolloid dressing for neurosurgical wounds according to the modern concept of wound healing. METHODS: From May 2005 to March 2007, we performed 117 cranial neurosurgical procedures in consecutive 100 patients. Karayahesive (ALCARE, Tokyo, Japan), a transparent hydrocolloid dressing, was affixed onto all wounds immediately postoperatively. Clinical evaluations were performed for wound healing, wound infection, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Excellent wound healing and cosmetic results were obtained in all patients. There was no incisional surgical site infection. Analysis of cost-effectiveness suggested Karayahesive as superior to conventional gauze-and-tape dressings. CONCLUSION: Karayahesive fits with the modern concept of wound healing and is a useful dressing for neurosurgical wounds.

Randomized clinical trial of honey-impregnated dressings for venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of honey as a treatment for venous ulcers has not been evaluated, despite widespread interest. This trial aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of honey as a dressing for venous ulcers. METHODS: This community-based open-label randomized trial allocated people with a venous ulcer to calcium alginate dressings impregnated with manuka honey or usual care. All participants received compression bandaging. The primary outcome was the proportion of ulcers healed after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were: time to healing, change in ulcer area, incidence of infection, costs per healed ulcer, adverse events and quality of life. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: Of 368 participants, 187 were randomized to honey and 181 to usual care. At 12 weeks, 104 ulcers (55.6 per cent) in the honey-treated group and 90 (49.7 per cent) in the usual care group had healed (absolute increase 5.9 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) -4.3 to 15.7) per cent; P = 0.258). Treatment with honey was probably more expensive and associated with more adverse events (relative risk 1.3 (95 per cent c.i. 1.1 to 1.6); P = 0.013). There were no significant differences between the groups for other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Honey-impregnated dressings did not significantly improve venous ulcer healing at 12 weeks compared with usual care. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 06161544 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Hydrocolloid dressings in the management of acute wounds: a review of the literature.

A review of the literature suggests that the application of self-adhesive hydrocolloid dressings, most commonly associated with the treatment of ulcerative conditions such as pressure ulcers and leg ulcers, may also offer benefits in the management of acute wounds of all types, for example decreasing healing times of donor sites by about 40% compared with traditional treatments. Healing times of superficial traumatic injuries and surgical wounds are similarly enhanced but in the treatment of burns, the principal benefit appears to be a reduction in wound pain, an effect that has also been reported in virtually all other wound types. The impermeable nature of hydrocolloids provides a protective covering to the wound, permitting washing or showering while helping to prevent the spread of pathogenic microorganisms. There also appear to be significant cost-benefits associated with the use of hydrocolloids. In recent years, hydrocolloid dressings have been replaced by other products such as foams for the treatment of more heavily exuding wounds but for more lightly exuding wounds they still offer many practical advantages and as such will undoubtedly continue to meet an important need in wound management practice.

[Economic aspects of standardization of modern wound care]. / Okonomische Effekte der Standardisierung in der modernen Wundversorgung.

BACKGROUND: Despite the advantages of modern wound management, it is still employed too rarely because of higher costs and lack of information available to the medical staff. At the University Hospital Jena, the assortment of hydroactive wound dressings has been optimized, in order to increase acceptance and attain cost advantages. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The defined target sizes were differentiated according to economic and qualitative parameters. The economic parameters included the reduction in the total costs for wound management, adjusted for the case mix and the number of cases. Among the qualitative parameters were reducing the number of suppliers and the number of orders outside the standard offerings. RESULTS: Via standardization, the average expenses per case for hydroactive wound applications could be reduced by 10.3% and the average expenses per weighted German DRG by 15.9%. As a result of the reorganization of the assortment, the number of suppliers was reduced by 57.1% and two main and one secondary supplier were designated. The number of orders outside the standard assortment was reduced from 173 to 21 (87.8%). CONCLUSION: The standardization of the assortment of hydroactive wound applications has led to an increase in procedural efficiency and effectiveness at the University Hospital Jena, in addition to a reduction in the cost of material and in the number of suppliers.

A protocol for the use of amorphous hydrogel to support wound healing in neonatal patients: an adjunct to nursing skin care.

The care registered nurses offer makes a critical difference in the quality and cost-effectiveness of patient outcomes. The prevention and treatment of alterations in skin integrity remain primary nurse-sensitive quality indicators. Although wound prevention is a primary goal for nurses, iatrogenic wounds do occur. Neonatal patients are at greater risk for alterations in skin integrity because of the fragile nature of their skin. When skin breakdown occurs, nurses must have knowledge of effective treatment alternatives. The purpose of this article is to describe the use of a collaborative practice protocol to introduce and document patient outcomes with the use of amorphous hydrogel as a treatment modality for iatrogenic neonatal wounds. All hospitals collect data on the quality of patient care, and it has been known for some time that registered nurses can make a critical difference in the quality of patient care and the effectiveness of patient outcomes. The American Nurses Association has identified ten specific quality measures that are impacted by nursing care. Referred to as nurse-sensitive quality indicators, these measures include the maintenance of skin integrity.

Effect of a sustained silver-releasing dressing on ulcers with delayed healing: the CONTOP study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of the sustained silver-releasing foam dressing Contreet Foam (ColoplastA/S) with local best practice (LBP) on delayed healing ulcers using a real-life setting. METHOD: A total of 619 patients with ulcers of varying aetiologies were treated for four weeks with either the silver foam dressing or LBP. RESULTS: Wound area was reduced by 50% with the silver foam and 34% with LBP Less slough and maceration, a faster reduction in exudate level and more positive wound progress was achieved with the silver foam. In addition, exudate handling, ease of use, odour and pain improved. Less time was spent on dressing changes, and mean wear time was longer for the silver foam (3.1 days) than for LBP (2.1 days). All differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The silver foam dressing outperformed all of the other dressing categories including moist wound healing products and other silver dressings. CONCLUSION: This large-scale comparative real-life study shows that the silver foam dressing supports faster healing of delayed healing wounds.