{"title":"Updating Wound Care Algorithms: A Systematic, Focused Review.","authors":"Lia van Rijswijk, Janice M Beitz","doi":"10.1097/WON.0000000000001154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this project was to update the underlying evidence base for basic wound care in the Solutions Wound Care Algorithms and revise this resource as needed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The 14 major algorithm goals, guidelines, and outcomes of patient care and 34 detailed qualifying assessment and management statements/steps were reconstructed to encompass 21 qualifying statements/steps and aligned with their most recent (2013) levels of evidence. Next, a systematic, focused review of the literature was conducted to update the evidence levels using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy.</p><p><strong>Search strategy: </strong>An English language search of CINAHL, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) electronic databases was conducted for the years 2015-2023. For each wound type, the following search terms were used: meta-analysis, systematic review, randomized controlled trial, clinical practice guideline, clinical trial, and wound care/healing and dressings. Publications not focused on the patient population or qualifying statements were excluded.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The search retrieved 59 elements that met the predetermined criteria for analysis and leveling. All qualifying statements and steps remain evidence-based. Higher quality evidence became available for nutritional status assessment, exercise to reduce risk factors for various types of lower extremity ulcers, using tap water to cleanse wounds; that delayed wound healing may be a sign of infection, and that silver-containing dressings are effective when used appropriately. No basic patient and wound care steps have the highest level of evidence (level 1) and strength of recommendation (A).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to previous updates, we found fewer clinical trials indicating a need for research to improve evidence levels for various steps of basic wound assessment and care processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":49950,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing","volume":"52 2","pages":"104-111"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000001154","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this project was to update the underlying evidence base for basic wound care in the Solutions Wound Care Algorithms and revise this resource as needed.
Methods: The 14 major algorithm goals, guidelines, and outcomes of patient care and 34 detailed qualifying assessment and management statements/steps were reconstructed to encompass 21 qualifying statements/steps and aligned with their most recent (2013) levels of evidence. Next, a systematic, focused review of the literature was conducted to update the evidence levels using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy.
Search strategy: An English language search of CINAHL, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) electronic databases was conducted for the years 2015-2023. For each wound type, the following search terms were used: meta-analysis, systematic review, randomized controlled trial, clinical practice guideline, clinical trial, and wound care/healing and dressings. Publications not focused on the patient population or qualifying statements were excluded.
Findings: The search retrieved 59 elements that met the predetermined criteria for analysis and leveling. All qualifying statements and steps remain evidence-based. Higher quality evidence became available for nutritional status assessment, exercise to reduce risk factors for various types of lower extremity ulcers, using tap water to cleanse wounds; that delayed wound healing may be a sign of infection, and that silver-containing dressings are effective when used appropriately. No basic patient and wound care steps have the highest level of evidence (level 1) and strength of recommendation (A).
Conclusion: Compared to previous updates, we found fewer clinical trials indicating a need for research to improve evidence levels for various steps of basic wound assessment and care processes.
目的:该项目的目的是更新解决方案伤口护理算法中基本伤口护理的基础证据基础,并根据需要修改该资源。方法:对患者护理的14个主要算法目标、指南和结果以及34个详细的合格评估和管理声明/步骤进行重构,以包含21个合格声明/步骤,并与最近(2013年)的证据水平保持一致。接下来,对文献进行了系统的、集中的回顾,以使用推荐强度分类法更新证据水平。检索策略:2015-2023年对CINAHL、Medline、Cochrane Library和Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI)电子数据库进行英文检索。对于每种伤口类型,使用以下搜索词:荟萃分析,系统评价,随机对照试验,临床实践指南,临床试验,伤口护理/愈合和敷料。不关注患者群体或资格声明的出版物被排除在外。结果:搜索检索了59个元素,这些元素符合分析和水平的预定标准。所有合格声明和步骤都是基于证据的。在营养状况评估、锻炼以减少各种类型下肢溃疡的危险因素、使用自来水清洁伤口等方面获得了更高质量的证据;伤口愈合的延迟可能是感染的迹象,如果使用得当,含银敷料是有效的。没有基本的患者和伤口护理步骤具有最高证据水平(1级)和推荐强度(A级)。结论:与之前的更新相比,我们发现较少的临床试验表明需要研究来提高基本伤口评估和护理过程的各个步骤的证据水平。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing (JWOCN), the official journal of the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society™ (WOCN®), is the premier publication for wound, ostomy and continence practice and research. The Journal’s mission is to publish current best evidence and original research to guide the delivery of expert health care.
The WOCN Society is a professional nursing society which supports its members by promoting educational, clinical and research opportunities to advance the practice and guide the delivery of expert health care to individuals with wounds, ostomies and continence care needs.