Implementation of Clinical Algorithms in Complex Wound Care: A Pilot Study on Feasibility and Professional Acceptance.

IF 2.5 Q1 NURSING
Nursing Research and Practice Pub Date : 2026-05-15 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1155/nrp/1833733
Marques R, Lopes M, Pais-Vieira C, Neves-Amado J, Alves P
{"title":"Implementation of Clinical Algorithms in Complex Wound Care: A Pilot Study on Feasibility and Professional Acceptance.","authors":"Marques R, Lopes M, Pais-Vieira C, Neves-Amado J, Alves P","doi":"10.1155/nrp/1833733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Mobile applications that integrate clinical algorithms have the potential to standardize wound assessment and to support clinical decision-making across assessment, diagnostic support, and therapeutic planning in complex wound care. This pilot study explored the feasibility of implementing such algorithms in a mobile application and examined concordance with nurse assessments and professional acceptance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective multicenter pilot cohort study was conducted between June and October 2023 in rehabilitation units, outpatient clinics, primary healthcare, homecare, and hospitals. Adults aged ≥ 18 years with pressure injuries/pressure ulcers, venous leg ulcers, arterial ulcers, or diabetic foot ulcers were eligible. Nurses recorded data using the <i>CWS_Validation</i> application at three time points over 4 weeks. Agreement between algorithm-generated classifications and nurse assessments was analyzed using Cohen's kappa, Fleiss' kappa, and Krippendorff's alpha. Nurse adherence to therapeutic recommendations and perceptions of the alert system were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 49 patients with 56 wounds (mean age = 79 years) were included. Pressure injuries/pressure ulcers were most prevalent (71.4%), particularly categories 3 (25%) and 4 (23.2%). The algorithm provided diagnoses for 46 wounds, with fair overall concordance with nurse assessments (<i>κ</i> = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.24-0.57). Adherence to therapeutic recommendations was high: 85.3% in complete monitoring and 90.3% in partial monitoring. Nurses rated the alert system positively (mean = 4.34, SD = 0.82) in complete monitoring sessions (<i>n</i> = 109).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clinical algorithms can be feasibly integrated into mobile applications and are well accepted by nurses across diverse care contexts. These preliminary findings highlight the potential of algorithm-driven tools to support wound assessment and decision-making, while underscoring the need for larger studies with more robust designs to confirm clinical impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":46917,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Research and Practice","volume":"2026 ","pages":"1833733"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13179419/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/nrp/1833733","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Mobile applications that integrate clinical algorithms have the potential to standardize wound assessment and to support clinical decision-making across assessment, diagnostic support, and therapeutic planning in complex wound care. This pilot study explored the feasibility of implementing such algorithms in a mobile application and examined concordance with nurse assessments and professional acceptance.

Methods: A prospective multicenter pilot cohort study was conducted between June and October 2023 in rehabilitation units, outpatient clinics, primary healthcare, homecare, and hospitals. Adults aged ≥ 18 years with pressure injuries/pressure ulcers, venous leg ulcers, arterial ulcers, or diabetic foot ulcers were eligible. Nurses recorded data using the CWS_Validation application at three time points over 4 weeks. Agreement between algorithm-generated classifications and nurse assessments was analyzed using Cohen's kappa, Fleiss' kappa, and Krippendorff's alpha. Nurse adherence to therapeutic recommendations and perceptions of the alert system were also evaluated.

Results: A total of 49 patients with 56 wounds (mean age = 79 years) were included. Pressure injuries/pressure ulcers were most prevalent (71.4%), particularly categories 3 (25%) and 4 (23.2%). The algorithm provided diagnoses for 46 wounds, with fair overall concordance with nurse assessments (κ = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.24-0.57). Adherence to therapeutic recommendations was high: 85.3% in complete monitoring and 90.3% in partial monitoring. Nurses rated the alert system positively (mean = 4.34, SD = 0.82) in complete monitoring sessions (n = 109).

Conclusions: Clinical algorithms can be feasibly integrated into mobile applications and are well accepted by nurses across diverse care contexts. These preliminary findings highlight the potential of algorithm-driven tools to support wound assessment and decision-making, while underscoring the need for larger studies with more robust designs to confirm clinical impact.

临床算法在复杂伤口护理中的实施:可行性和专业接受度的试点研究。
目的:集成临床算法的移动应用程序有可能标准化伤口评估,并在复杂伤口护理中支持临床决策,包括评估、诊断支持和治疗计划。这项试点研究探索了在移动应用程序中实施这种算法的可行性,并检查了与护士评估和专业接受度的一致性。方法:于2023年6月至10月在康复单位、门诊诊所、初级卫生保健、家庭护理和医院进行了一项前瞻性多中心试点队列研究。年龄≥18岁且有压伤/压疮、下肢静脉溃疡、动脉溃疡或糖尿病足溃疡的成人纳入研究。护士使用CWS_Validation应用程序在4周内的三个时间点记录数据。使用Cohen的kappa、Fleiss的kappa和Krippendorff的alpha分析算法生成的分类与护士评估之间的一致性。护士对治疗建议的依从性和对警报系统的认知也进行了评估。结果:共纳入49例患者,56处伤口,平均年龄79岁。压伤/压疮最常见(71.4%),特别是第3类(25%)和第4类(23.2%)。该算法提供了46个伤口的诊断,与护士评估的总体一致性较好(κ = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.24-0.57)。治疗建议的依从性很高:完全监测为85.3%,部分监测为90.3%。在完整的监测过程中(n = 109),护士对警报系统的评价是肯定的(平均= 4.34,SD = 0.82)。结论:临床算法可以可行地集成到移动应用程序中,并且在不同的护理环境中被护士所接受。这些初步发现强调了算法驱动工具在支持伤口评估和决策方面的潜力,同时强调了需要更大规模的研究和更可靠的设计来确认临床影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
19 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书