Secondary Logo

Periwound Challenges Improve Patient Satisfaction in Wound Care

Wongkietkachorn, Apinut, MD*; Surakunprapha, Palakorn, MD; Titapun, Attapol, MD; Wongkietkachorn, Nuttapone, MD§; Wongkietkachorn, Supawich, MD

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open: March 2019 - Volume 7 - Issue 3 - p e2134
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002134
Ideas and Innovations
Open
SDC
Thailand

Summary: In wound care, we usually focus nearly all of our efforts on the wound area while paying little attention to the periwound area. Although the periwound area may seem unimportant, it matters to patients. A female patient was admitted with a wound at the perianal area. Wound dressing was performed using standard wet-to-dry gauzes. The patient had several small complaints including irritant contact dermatitis, skin maceration, pain during dressing change, and fecal contamination to the wound. In this case, we ended up switching to a different method of wound dressing. We went from using wet-to-dry gauzes for the primary dressing to a hydrofiber with silver dressing and from gauze and Micropore as a secondary dressing to an adhesive sodium carboxymethylcellulose foam dressing. This resolved all complaints. The patient’s satisfaction score using visual analog scale increased from 2 to 10 (out of 10 points). This example shows how even small details can make a significant difference in wound care. Because periwound care is often neglected, therapeutic algorithm that integrates major challenges in periwound care into wound healing strategies is proposed.

From the *Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Mae Fah Luang University, Chiang Rai, Thailand

Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

§Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Q Clinic, Bangkok, Thailand

Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand

Published online 22 March 2019.

Received for publication October 3, 2018; accepted December 12, 2018.

Disclosure: The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Clickable URL citations appear in the text.

Palakorn Surakunprapha, MD, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, 123 Mittraparp Highway, Muang District, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand, E-mail: apinutme@gmail.com

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

In wound care, we usually focus nearly all of our efforts on the wound area while paying little attention to the periwound area. Although the periwound area may seem unimportant, it matters to patients. Thus, if we were to put more effort into periwound care, it could make a positive difference in terms of patient experience and satisfaction.1

Figures 1, 2 show a particularly difficult wound care case. The patient was admitted with a wound at the perianal area. Wound dressing was performed using standard wet-to-dry gauzes. In this case, the patient had several small complaints regarding the wound that had not been attended to. First, she had irritant contact dermatitis caused by Transpore and Micropore (3M, USA). It was suggested that this could be due to irritation from the adhesive substance used in the tape, which was made of acrylate adhesive (Fig. 1).2 Second, there was a mild skin maceration at the border of the wound caused by the wet-to-dry gauzes (see figure, Supplemental Digital Content 1, which displays problems from standard wound care, http://links.lww.com/PRSGO/A993). Third, she experienced significant pain during dressing change (pain score: 7/10). Finally, she had difficulty in defecation, as the feces would contaminate the external layer of gauze and later penetrate wound bed. Table 1 summarized problems found in this patient, which reflected major pitfalls in periwound care. These details may seem insignificant as they do not hinder the healing of the wound. However, if more care is taken in this respect, physicians may be able to provide a better experience for the patient and improve patient satisfaction.

Table 1

Table 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

In this case, we ended up switching to a different method of wound dressing. We went from using wet-to-dry gauzes for the primary dressing to a hydrofiber with silver dressing (Aquacel Ag+ Extra; ConvaTec, UK) and from gauze and Micropore as a secondary dressing to an adhesive sodium carboxymethylcellulose (Na-CMC) foam dressing (Adhesive Aquacel Foam; ConvaTec, USA). This resolved the irritant contact dermatitis, as the adhesive substance used in the adhesive Na-CMC foam was made from silicone (Fig. 2). The macerated skin was also resolved after 5 days due to the adequate absorbency of the Na-CMC foam. The foam combined with the exudate inside the wound area, becoming a soft gel that blocked the exudate from leaving the wound area.3 In addition, the patient’s pain score using visual analog scale was significantly reduced4 from 7 to 2. Finally, defecation was easier as the external top layer of the Na-CMC foam, which was made of polyurethane film, was waterproof and was able to prevent feces from penetrating the wound bed (see figure, Supplemental Digital Content 2, which displays results of wound care with careful attention to the minute details, http://links.lww.com/PRSGO/A994). The patient’s satisfaction score using visual analog scale increased from 2 to 10 (out of 10 points). Because periwound care is often neglected, therapeutic algorithm that integrates major challenges in periwound care into wound healing strategies5–7 is proposed in Figure 3.

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

This example shows how even small details can make a significant difference in wound care.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Bateman SD. 150 patient experiences with a soft silicone foam dressing. Br J Nurs. 2015;24:S16, S8–S23.
2. Widman TJ, Oostman H, Storrs FJ. Allergic contact dermatitis from medical adhesive bandages in patients who report having a reaction to medical bandages. Dermatitis. 2008;19:32–37.
3. Waring MJ, Parsons D. Physico-chemical characterisation of carboxymethylated spun cellulose fibres. Biomaterials. 2001;22:903–912.
4. Barnea Y, Amir A, Leshem D, et al. Clinical comparative study of aquacel and paraffin gauze dressing for split-skin donor site treatment. Ann Plast Surg. 2004;53:132–136.
5. Hollinworth H. Challenges in protecting peri-wound skin. Nurs Stand. 2009;24:53–54, 56, 58 passim.
6. Bechert K, Abraham SE. Pain management and wound care. J Am Col Certif Wound Spec. 2009;1:65–71.
7. Akhmetova A, Saliev T, Allan IU, et al. A comprehensive review of topical odor-controlling treatment options for chronic wounds. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2016;43:598–609.

Supplemental Digital Content

Back to Top | Article Outline
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. All rights reserved.