Every year, all long-term care (LTC) facilities funded by Medicare or Medicaid are inspected to ensure they are in compliance with federal and state regulations. The regulations are broken down into so-called F-Tags to help track data. The F-Tag designated for review of the facility’s pressure-ulcer prevention and management program is F314. If a resident develops a pressure ulcer in the facility or if a pressure ulcer worsens while the resident is in the facility (even
if the resident was admitted with the pressure ulcer), the facility could face a citation under F314. Such a citation, if not remedied, could lead to financial penalties, Medicare and Medicaid fund stoppages, or even closing of the facility.
When preparing for this annual survey, many providers focus on the charts of residents with wounds. However, many citations are triggered from residents without wounds. For example, a surveyor may observe a resident lying in a position longer than the plan of care indicates. So when preparing for a survey, staff should always look at the big picture—wound prevention and management.
The following items should be audited to help ensure your documentation is compliant with the F314 tag:
1. The risk assessment (such as with the Braden risk assessment tool) should be current and accurate. In LTC facilities, the risk assessment should be done:
• on admission or readmission
• weekly for the first 4 weeks after
admission
• with a change in the resident’s condition
• quarterly or annually with the minimum data set (MDS).
2. The plan of care should be audited to ensure that:
• all risk factors identified from the risk assessment, MDS, care area assessment, resident history, physical examination, and overall chart review are pulled forward and listed on the skin integrity plan of care
• the plan of care identifies correlating interventions to help stabilize or modify individual risk factors
• staff have been interviewed and have physically observed the resident to ensure all risk factors and interventions provided are reflected accurately on the plan of care.
3. Nursing-assistant assignment sheets should match the information on the plan of care.
4. Head-to-toe skin checks are performed weekly on all residents by licensed staff.
5. Wound assessments are done at least every 7 days, are complete and accurate, and include evaluation of wound progress.
6. Documentation reflects that the physician or nurse practitioner, family, and interdisciplinary team are notified when a wound is discovered, when no progress has occurred in 2 weeks, when the resident declines, and when the wound heals.
7. The treatment sheet order is transcribed accurately and treatment is being provided as prescribed.
Other items to audit
Also audit these items to prepare for the survey:
• resident turning and repositioning
• incontinence care
• use of supplies, equipment, and devices (such as heel lift boots, wheelchair cushions, and powered mattresses) to ensure these are functioning properly and are in good condition
• dressing-change technique
• storage of wound care supplies to ensure they meet infection-control guidelines and haven’t expired.
Ideally, the wound care nurse or nurse manager should set aside a designated number of hours every month to audit charts and observe hands-on care. This person also can use weekly wound rounds to monitor dressing changes, nurses’ ability to assess wounds, and equipment and dressing supplies.
Jeri Lundgren is director of clinical services at Pathway Health in Minnesota. She has been specializing in wound prevention and management since 1990.
Each month, Apple Bites brings you a tool you can apply in your daily practice.
Description
According to the American Diabetes Association, all patients with diabetes should be screened for loss of protective sensation in their feet (peripheral neuropathy) when they are diagnosed and at least annually thereafter, using simple clinical tests such as the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament exam.
The Semmes-Weinstein 5.07 monofilament nylon wire exerts 10 g of force when bowed into a C shape against the skin for 1 second. Patients who can’t reliably detect application of the 5.07, 10-g monofilament to designated sites on the plantar surface of their feet are considered to have lost protective sensation. (more…)
A hot flush of embarrassment creates a bead of sweat on my forehead. “I’ve got to get this measurement,” I plead to myself. One glance at the clock tells me this bedside ankle-brachial index (ABI) procedure has already taken more than 30 minutes. My stomach sinks as I realize I’ll have to abandon the test as inconclusive. (more…)
With this PDF, which you can download, you can have the interpretation of common noninvasive tests for lower extremity arterial disease at your fingertips.
Donna Sardina is Editor-in-Chief of Wound Care Advisor and cofounder of the Wound Care Education Institute in Plainfield, Illinois.
Guidelines for managing prosthetic joint infections released
The Infectious Diseases Society of America has released guidelines for diagnosing and managing prosthetic joint infections.
“Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America,” published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, notes that of the 1 million people each year who have their hips or knees replaced, as many as 20,000 will get an infection in the new joint.
The guidelines describe the best methods for diagnosing these infections, which are not easy to identify. Specifically, infection should be suspected in a patient who has any of the following: persistent wound drainage in the skin over the joint replacement, sudden onset of a painful prosthesis, or ongoing pain after the prosthesis has been implanted, especially if there had been no pain for several years or if there is a history of prior wound healing problems or infections.
Guidelines for treating infections are included and note that 4 to 6 weeks of I.V. or highly bioavailable oral antibiotic therapy is almost always necessary to treat prosthetic joint infections.
A decade of TIME
The TIME acronym (tissue, infection/inflammation, moisture balance, and edge of wound) was first developed more than 10 years ago to provide a framework for a structured approach to wound bed preparation and a basis for optimizing the management of open chronic wounds healing by secondary intention. To mark the event, the International Wound Journal has published “Extending the TIME concept: What have we learned in the past 10 years?”
The review points out four key developments:
• recognition of the importance of biofilms (and the need for a simple diagnostic)
• use of negative-pressure wound therapy
• evolution of topical antiseptic therapy as dressings and for wound lavage (notably, silver and polyhexamethylene biguanide)
• expanded insight into the role of molecular biological processes in chronic wounds (with emerging diagnostics).
The authors conclude, “The TIME principle remains relevant 10 years on, with continuing important developments that incorporate new evidence for wound care.”
Bed alarms fail to reduce patient falls
A study in Annals of Internal Medicine found that the use of bed alarms had no statistical or clinical effect on falls in an urban community hospital.
The 18-month trial included 16 nursing units and 27,672 inpatients. There was no difference in fall rates per 1,000 patient-days, the number of patients who fell, or the number of patients physically restrained on units using bed alarms, compared with control units.
Authors of “Effects of an intervention to increase bed alarm use to prevent falls in hospitalized patients: A cluster randomized trial” speculate the lack of response may be related to “alarm fatigue.”
Drug for HIV might help in Staph infections
A study in Nature reports that the drug maraviroc, used to treat HIV, might be useful for treating Staphylococcus aureus infections.
“CCR5 is a receptor for Staphylococcus aureus leukotoxin ED” found that the CCR5 receptor, which dots the surface of immune T cells, macrophages, and dendritic cells, is critical to the ability of certain strains of Staph to specifically target and kill cells with CCR5, which orchestrate an immune response against the bacteria. One of the toxins the bacterium releases, called LukED, latches on to CCR5 and subsequently punches holes through the membrane of immune cells, causing them to rapidly die.
When researchers treated cells with CCR5 with maraviroc and exposed the cells to the Staph toxin, they found maraviroc blocked toxic effects.
Dog able to sniff out C. difficile
A 2-year-old beagle trained to identify the smell of Clostridium difficile was 100% successful in identifying the bacteria in stool samples, and correctly identified 25 of 30 cases of patients with C. difficile, according to a study in BMJ.
“Using a dog’s superior olfactory sensitivity to identify Clostridium difficile in stools and patients: Proof of principle study” discusses how the dog was trained to detect C. difficile and concludes that although more research is needed, dogs have the potential for screening for C. difficile infection.
After-hours access to providers reduces ED use
Patients who have access to their primary healthcare providers after hours use emergency departments (EDs) less frequently, according to a study in Health Affairs.
“After-hours access to primary care practices linked with lower emergency department use and less unmet medical need” found that 30.4% of patients with after-hours access to their primary care providers reported ED use, compared with 37.7% of those without this access. In addition, those with after-hours access had lower rates of unmet needs (6.1% compared to 12.7%).
The findings come from the 2010 Health Tracking Household Survey of the Center for Studying Health System Change. The total sample included 9,577 respondents.
Neuropathic pain in patients with DPN might contribute to risk of falling
The presence of neuropathic pain in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) contributes to gait variability, which could in turn contribute to the risk of falling, according to “Increased gait variability in diabetes mellitus patients with neuropathic pain.”
The study, published in the Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications, compared patients with at least moderate neuropathic pain with those who had no pain. Researchers used a portable device to measure gait parameters, such as step length and step velocity.
Amputation rates decrease significantly in patients with PAD
“Temporal trends and geographic variation of lower-extremity amputation in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD): Results from U.S. Medicare 2000–2008” found that amputation rates have decreased significantly, but that significant patient and geographic variations remain.
The study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, found that among 2,730,742 older patients with identified PAD, the overall rate of lower extremity amputation decreased from 7,258 per 100,000 patients to 5,790 per 100,000. Predictors of lower-extremity amputation included male sex, black race, diabetes mellitus, and renal disease.
January is traditionally the time of year when everyone starts the New Year fresh with resolutions for change—better organization, healthy living, new beginnings. This year, I want to challenge you to include your patients in your resolution planning. Work with each patient and come up with ideas to help improve their quality of life by, for instance, healing a wound, wearing a splint, keeping blood glucose levels within normal range, elevating the feet.
For resolutions to be effective, a “buy in” must exist. Most people don’t like
being told what they must do and would rather hear what they can do. So be sure to include your patients in the planning process. Ask them their opinion. Ask “What could I do differently to help you with this?” Determine if their treatments could be interfering with their lifestyle. Set mutually compatible goals. Most of all, help promote patients’ search for their own solutions.
To make an informed choice of can do instead of must do, patients must have a clear understanding of the facts, implications, and consequences. The Institute of Medicine defines health literacy as the degree to which individuals have the capacity to understand, obtain, and process basic health information needed to make appropriate health decisions. It’s easy to assume our patients know all the facts, especially if they have had the wound, ostomy, or diagnosis for many years. However, according to the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, almost 45% of the U.S. population (about 93 million Americans) have, at best, only basic health literacy skills.
To improve their health literacy, review your patients’ understanding of their situation and ask them to describe their diagnosis and treatment plan in their own words. If they can’t describe these correctly, reteach the information. Consider the possibility that you might have to use a new educational approach or method.
A new year and a new start, with a shared understanding of problems and potential solutions between the patient and wound care team can get you started on the pathway to success. To quote Zig Ziglar, “A goal properly set is halfway reached.”
Donna Sardina, RN, MHA, WCC, CWCMS, DWC, OMS
Editor-in-Chief Wound Care Advisor
Cofounder, Wound Care Education Institute
Plainfield, Illinois
By Carrie Carls, BSN, RN, CWOCN, CHRN; Michael Molyneaux, MD; and William Ryan, CHT
Every year, 1.9% of patients with diabetes develop foot ulcers. Of those, 15% to 20% undergo an amputation within 5 years of ulcer onset. During their lifetimes, an estimated 25% of diabetic patients develop a foot ulcer. This article discusses use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in treating diabetic foot ulcers, presenting several case studies.
HBOT involves intermittent administration of 100% oxygen inhaled at a pressure greater than sea level. It may be given in a:
• multi-place chamber (used to treat multiple patients at the same time), compressed to depth by air as the patient breathes 100% oxygen through a face mask or hood (more…)
Renee asks her mentor, Susan, a question. Susan puts her hand near Renee’s face, gesturing for her to “Stop,” and says in a loud voice, “I told you the answer to that this morning. Why are you bothering me again?”
You’re working your shift with Amy, who’s in charge of the unit. She refuses to have a meaningful conversation with you, and ignores you or sighs impatiently when you try to share patient information with her.
These examples reflect lateral (horizontal) violence or abuse in the workplace, defined as violence or abuse occurring between workers. It includes both overt and covert acts of verbal and nonverbal aggression.
Chances are you’ve experienced or witnessed disruptive or inappropriate behavior by a peer or colleague. Intimidation, bullying, insults, humiliation, gossip, constant criticism, and angry outbursts are a few examples. More subtle examples include favoritism, unfair work assignments, inappropriate or unfair evaluations, sarcasm, snide comments, withholding information, holding a grudge, and belittling gestures.
Lateral violence in any form feels bad. It creates fear—and fear causes you to shrink and hold back from being your best. You can’t be productive in a fearful environment. Instead, you may feel violated, anxious, stressed, disrespected, and angry. A response of silence or ignoring the offender is common, but not ideal. Here are some better strategies.
Acknowledge your feelings
Admit to yourself that you’re hurting and something is wrong. Many victims dismiss or minimize the event, or even blame themselves. Resist that temptation. If it feels bad, it is bad. And if you allow the behavior, that person is sure to repeat it—not because she’s a bad person, but because she doesn’t realize her behavior is wrong. If you respond by acting surprised and assuming she doesn’t know what she’s doing and has no idea how her actions affect you, it will be easier to respond professionally and quickly.
If abuse or violence of any form is tolerated, it will continue. And the negative workplace culture will significantly affect the health and well-being of both staff and patients.
Respond appropriately
Here are the four keys to responding appropriately to lateral violence in the workplace—or anywhere else, for that matter.
Manage your emotions
Take a deep breath and pause. Don’t react right away. Self-awareness is crucial to managing your emotions and your responses. Take a time-out if you’ve become emotional. Use calming techniques, such as deep breathing, guided imagery, humor, or prayer. If you try to deal with the perpetrator while upset, you’re more likely to behave unprofessionally. Restrain yourself until you feel able to assert yourself in a professional manner.
Use empathy
Try to find out where the person’s coming from to help understand what’s going on with her that might have triggered her behavior. For example, a person may engage in negative behavior because she’s going through a divorce. (See It’s not about you by clicking the PDF icon above.)
Keep in mind that bad behavior reflects poor self-esteem and serves as a wall to keep people out. It’s also learned behavior. Someone who behaves badly has learned this behavior brings some kind of reward; otherwise, she wouldn’t do it. Perhaps the reward is attention or power. Whatever it is, she gains something from the behavior at others’ expense. Most likely, she’s unaware of this dynamic.
By using empathy, you not only learn more about the offender; that person learns more about herself. Show an interest in why she behaved that way by asking questions; for instance: “I’ve noticed you’ve been more impatient lately. Are you okay? Is there something going on I should know about?” When you’ve gained a clearer understanding of the person, you can set clear expectations and boundaries.
Assert your boundaries
Asserting your boundaries tells others what behaviors are unacceptable. When you assert your boundaries, you honor yourself. When something doesn’t feel right, tell the person directly that her behavior is inappropriate and ask her to stop it. If you say nothing, your silence implies the behavior is acceptable.
Tell the person directly that her behavior is inappropriate. Keep it simple and clear. Use such language as “This doesn’t work for me.” That way, you’re accepting responsibility for your feelings and you’re not making her wrong.
Asserting a boundary might sound like this: “Please lower your voice.” But be careful of the tone you use when making the request. You might ask, “Did you realize you were yelling?” She might not be aware of how angry or loud she is at that moment.
Make direct requests
Tell the person directly how you’d like to be treated or how you want the two of you to work together. Identify what you want instead of what you’re getting—and then ask for it. Don’t assume she knows how to treat you. Determine what your goals are and what you need from her to accomplish what’s expected. If you can, try to establish a mutual goal for you both to work on, such as a more productive relationship so there’s less tension. Clearly communicating your requests informs others of the behavior you expect.
A case of respect
You might not want to befriend people at work, and you don’t have to like them. But each of us deserves to be treated with respect. To get respect, you must give it. If it’s not reciprocated, ask for it. Treat everyone with respect.
If you experience lateral hostility or violence on the job, deal with it directly and immediately. If it happens again, deal with it directly again and report it to your supervisor.
No matter how professional and respectful you are or how assertively you express your boundaries and needs, if your work environment remains abusive and leadership doesn’t address it or do enough to change it, you may need to leave your job. Stop wasting time and energy trying to fix a problem no one else wants to fix. Life is too short, and you deserve better.
Julie Donley is nurse manager for Devereux Children’s Behavioral Health Services in Pennsylvania. She has published hundreds of articles and just released her new book, Does Change Have to Be So H.A.R.D.? Visit www.JulieDonley.com to learn more.
A court case answers the question as to whether a pressure ulcer was preventable
By Nancy J. Brent, MS, RN, JD
Pressure ulcers are a major health risk for every adult patient. Risk factors include sepsis, hypotension, and age 70 or older. These risk factors became all too real when Mr. M developed pressure ulcers after being admitted to a Texas hospital.
Background
Mr. M, age 81, presented at a medical center’s emergency department on January 2 complaining of abdominal pain. After undergoing an assessment, he was diagnosed with gallstones and admitted to the hospital. The next day, he had gallbladder surgery. He subsequently developed a bowel obstruction and had to undergo two more surgeries for this condition over the next 10 days.
On January 13, he was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) because of multiple serious medical conditions, including respiratory distress syndrome (necessitating ventilatory support), septic shock, a “blood infection” that caused his blood pressure to drop, and multiorgan failure. His primary physician discontinued tube feedings out of concern they might exacerbate his renal failure; he wrote a do-not-resuscitate order and ordered sedation.
Mr. M was unable to turn or position himself in any way. While in the ICU, he developed a “skin tear” on the tailbone (coccyx) that progressed to a serious pressure ulcer. On February 6, his condition improved enough to allow his transfer to a rehabilitation hospital, where he developed pressure ulcers on his heels. He was transferred to another hospital; the ulcer on his coccyx healed by August. He remained in that hospital for 1 year before being discharged home.
Despite healing of the pressure ulcer on his coccyx, the wound area remained hard and painful, and Mr. M experienced “daily discomfort” there. Also, he was unable to do many of the things he’d been able to do before his hospitalization.
Mr. M files a medical malpractice suit
Mr. M sued the medical center, alleging the hospital was negligent by failing to prevent the pressure ulcer from forming through the use of known “pressure relief” methods, and that the hospital failed to provide proper care and treatment of the wound once it was discovered.
At trial, the medical center lawyers argued that Mr. M’s grave condition caused the pressure ulcer to develop. The jury returned a verdict for Mr. M, finding that the medical center’s negligence proximately caused the injuries he sustained. It awarded him $35,000 for medical expenses; $135,000 for past physical pain and mental anguish; $25,000 for future physical pain and mental anguish; $25,000 for past physical impairment; and $25,000 for future physical impairment. The medical center appealed the decision.
Medical center appeals the verdict
Several issues were raised by the medical center on appeal. Of particular interest to nurses and wound care practitioners was the “cause in fact” or the “proximate cause” of Mr. M’s pressure ulcer on the coccyx. Because an expert witness must establish proximate cause based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Mr. M’s case became a battle of the experts regarding the care he received, or lack of care, relative to development of the pressure ulcer.
Expert witness testimony for Mr. M
The first nurse expert to testify was Mr. M’s highly qualified expert. She testified about the various acceptable ways to provide pressure relief, including turning the patient or, if the patient can’t be turned, repositioning. The latter requires use of foam wedges or pillows to elevate a particular body part. The nurse expert testified that if a patient can’t be turned or repositioned, that fact must be documented along with the reason for inability to carry out this nursing care.
Proper assessment of the pressure ulcer is required so that other team members can “see” the wound; the clinician who assesses the wound should draw a picture of exactly what he or she saw when documenting the note in the patient’s chart. The nurse expert testified that the assessment should include the color, duration, and depth of the pressure ulcer; presence or absence of infection; and whether the tissue was dead or perfused.
After reviewing the medical center’s policies and protocols on pressure relief, which required nurses to provide pressure relief every 2 hours, and the depositions of the nurses who’d cared for Mr. M, the nurse expert testified there was no documentation showing Mr. M received any pressure relief from January 13 to January 16. She said she could only conclude that the nurses failed to turn or reposition him during those days. The only notation made about his skin condition was when nurses discovered the “skin tear” on January 14. After this discovery, the physician wasn’t notified of it until January 19. On that date, the physician ordered a wound care consult, but the actual consultation didn’t occur until 3 days later. Even with the wound consultant’s specific, written orders to care for the wound, only one notation existed showing that the orders were followed. Also, the wound care orders weren’t entered into Mr. M’s care plan until January 28. Additionally, in their depositions, the nurses caring for Mr. M couldn’t recall changing the dressing as ordered.
Therefore, in the nurse expert’s opinion, the pressure ulcer on Mr. M’s coccyx was caused directly by failure of the ICU nurses to provide pressure relief from January 14 to January 16 and that providing the wound care that was ordered would have prevented the ulcer from getting worse and would have healed the ulcer.
Although a physician serving as a second expert for Mr. M also testified that pressure relief should have been provided, he couldn’t say that development of the pressure ulcer was unpreventable.
Expert witness testimony for the medical center
Not surprisingly, the medical center’s expert witnesses, two of whom were physicians, testified that because of Mr. M’s general medical condition, he would have developed the pressure ulcer even if hospital policies and protocols had been followed. The hospital’s nurse expert witness stated that Mr. M’s pressure ulcer was not preventable because of his medical condition, regardless of whether or not he was turned. In her opinion, the active range of motion his nurses put him through was enough to reperfuse the area.
Appellate court’s decision
The appellate court upheld the trial court jury’s verdict, stating that evidence presented at the trial was legally and factually sufficient to support that verdict.
Take-away points
Mr. M’s case undoubtedly was complicated by his age and general medical condition, as well as disagreement among expert witnesses as to the cause of the pressure ulcer on his coccyx. Even so, the appellate court held that the evidence at trial (specifically that presented by Mr. M’s nurse expert witness) was sufficient legally and factually to support the verdict in favor of Mr. M. This case illustrates many areas of importance for nurses in terms of formation and care of pressure ulcers. They include the following: • Risk factors supporting potential formation of pressure ulcers can’t be overlooked or underestimated by nursing staff. • A plan to prevent pressure ulcers should be initiated on admission for every patient who is immobile or has other risk factors for pressure ulcers. • Documentation of every aspect of nursing care that’s initiated and continued to prevent pressure ulcers from forming must be carried out as ordered and pursuant to hospital policy and protocol. • Care plans, communications with other health team members, and carrying out of orders must be done as soon as possible. • Assessment and documentation of pressure ulcers should include enough detail so other health team members can visualize what the nurse entering the documentation has seen. • The nurse should assess and stage the pressure ulcer at each dressing change. • One’s expert witness must be credentialed, educated, and experienced in would care prevention and treatment, because his or her testimony can win or lose a case.
Nursing remains at the forefront of protecting and safeguarding patients from pressure ulcers. Although not every ulcer can be prevented, the goal is to prevent as many ulcers as possible. If a pressure ulcer does occur, caregivers’ essential focus must be on healing or preventing further deterioration and infection.
Selected references Columbia Medical Center Subsidiary, L.P., d/b/a/ North Central Medical Center, Appellant, v. John Meier, Appellee. 198 S.W. 3d 408 (Ct. Appeals 2006).
Lyder CH, Ayello EA. Pressure ulcers: A Patient Safety Issue. In: Hughes RG, ed. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook For Nurses. Rockville, MD: Agency For Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2008. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/
NBK2650/. Accessed November 1, 2012.
Nancy J. Brent is an attorney in Wilmette, Illinois. The information in this article is for educational purposes only and doesn’t constitute legal advice.
There’s an app for that! Here are a variety of medical apps that you might want to try. You can download them in the iTunes store, and the basic service is free.
Medscape
More than 1.4 million healthcare professionals use this app from WebMD, which includes:
• medical news
• clinical reference information, such as drugs and diseases
• medical calculators (not available for iPad).
The app is available for Android, iPad, and iPhone/iPod touch devices.
Use this app to take a photo of a wound. The app segments the image into red, yellow, and black to help with ulcer classification. You can also use the app to track changes in the wound over time. The app is available for iPad and iPhone/iPod touch devices. Note: This is free for a limited time.
The ePSS (Electronic Preventive Services Selector) app allows you to search and browse the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on the Web or a mobile device. The app is from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and is available for Android, iPad, and iPhone/iPod touch devices.
This app from the University of Michigan Health System allows users to complete and store photographs of the skin. Features include:
• guidance on performing a skin cancer self-exam and full-body photographic survey
• tracking of detected skin lesions and moles for changes over time
• notifications/reminders to perform self-exams on a routine basis
• storage of photos for baseline comparisons during routine follow-up self-
exams
• informational videos and literature on skin cancer prevention and healthy skin as well as a skin cancer risk calculator function.
The app is available for iPad and iPhone/iPod touch devices.
This data storage utility app is perfect for your patients with diabetes who want all their information in one place. Users can manually enter their glucose results, carbohydrate consumption, insulin dosages, and activities, and then view the data in a free glucosebuddy.com online account. Another option is the ability to set reminders for when it’s time to check blood glucose.
The app is available for Android, iPad, and iPhone/iPod touch devices.
Use this app to learn more about pressure ulcer staging. It includes information about 3M pressure ulcer products.
The app is available for iPad and iPhone/iPod touch devices.
This evidence-based tool is helpful for assessing and classifying peristomal skin lesions. Click here for more information about the SACS Instrument.
The app is available for iPad and iPhone/iPod touch devices.