{"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.
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.