What caused Mr. M’s pressure ulcer?

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.

Read More

NPUAP releases new position statement on exposed cartilage as Stage IV ulcer

The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) has released a new position statement, “Pressure ulcers with exposed cartilage are Stage IV pressure ulcers,” which states that pressure ulcers with exposed cartilage should be classified as Stage IV.
NPUAP notes that although the presence of “visible or palpable cartilage at the base of a pressure ulcer” wasn’t included in Stage IV terminology, cartilage “serves the same anatomical function as bone,” so it fits into the current Stage IV definition, “Full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle. Slough or eschar may be present on some parts of the wound bed. Often including undermining and tunneling.”

Medicare expenditures for diabetic foot care varies significantly by region

Medicare spending on patients with diabetes who have foot ulcers and lower extremity amputations varies significantly by region, according to a study in Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications, but more spending doesn’t significantly reduce 1-year mortality.
“Geographic variation in Medicare spending and mortality for diabetic patients with foot ulcers and amputations” examined data from 682,887 patients with foot ulcers and 151,752 patients with lower extremity amputations.
Macrovascular complications in patients with foot ulcers were associated with higher spending, and these complications in patients with amputations were more common in regions with higher mortality rates.
Rates of hospital admission were associated with higher spending and increased mortality rates for patients with foot ulcers and amputations.
“Geographic variation in Medicare spending and mortality rates for diabetic patients with foot ulcers and amputations is associated with regional differences in the utilization of inpatient services and the prevalence of macrovascular complications,” the study concludes.

Patients who develop pressure ulcers in hospital more likely to die

Medicare patients who develop pressure ulcers in the hospital are more likely to die during the hospital stay, have longer lengths of stay, and to be readmitted within 30 days after discharge, according to a study of 51,842 patients in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
“Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: results from the National Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System Study” found that 4.5% of patients developed at least one new pressure ulcer during their hospitalization. Length of stay averaged 4.8 days for patients who didn’t develop a pressure ulcer, compared to 11.2 days for those with a new pressure ulcer.

Patients with diabetic foot ulcers may have higher risk of death

Patients with diabetes who have foot ulcers have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality, according to a meta-analysis in Diabetologia.
“The association of ulceration of the foot with cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis” notes that the more frequent occurrence of cardiovascular disease only partly explains the increased mortality rate. Other explanations may include the more advanced stage of diabetes associated with those who had foot ulcers.
A Drugs.com article about the study reported that “analysis of data from more than 17,000 diabetes patients in eight studies found that the more than 3,000 patients with a history of foot ulcers had an extra 58 deaths per 1,000 people each year than those without foot ulcers.”
The study authors emphasize the importance of screening patients with diabetes for foot ulcers so intervention can begin early, as well as lowering cardiovascular risk factors.
Access patient information on foot care from the American Diabetes Association.

Nurse’s innovation for ostomy patients could improve quality of life

An oncology nurse in Australia has developed StomaLife, an alternative to ostomy bags.
StomaLife is a ceramic appliance that eliminates the need for an ostomy bag. According to the StomaLife website, the appliance uses a magnetic implant technology that provides a “pushing force” from within the body outward in order to keep the site intact, while a second part is placed on the stoma site. A cotton gauze pad is used between the skin and the appliance to keep the site separated and to provide air circulation to the surrounding skin.
“The benefits of StomaLife to ostomy patients are continence all day, reduced skin irritation and infection, odour and sound control, leak prevention, waste material flow control and on-demand gas release,” says Saied Sabeti.
StomaLife still needs to be tested and is not yet being produced.

View: StomaLife video

New laser-activated bio-adhesive polymer aims to replace sutures

The Journal of Visualized Experiments, a peer-reviewed video journal, has published “A chitosan based, laser activated thin film surgical adhesive, ‘SurgiLux’: preparation and demonstration.”
SurgiLux is a laser-activated, bio-adhesive polymer that is chitosan-based. Chitosan is a polymer derived from chitin, which is found in fungal cell walls or in exoskeletons of crustaceans and insects. This molecular component allows SurgiLux to form low-energy bonds between the polymer and the desired tissue when it absorbs light.
The technology may be able to replace traditional sutures in the clinical setting. SurgiLux polymer can achieve a uniform seal when activated by a laser and has antimicrobial properties, which help prevent a wound from becoming infected. It also maintains a barrier between the tissue and its surroundings.
SurgiLux has been tested both in vitro and in vivo on a variety of tissues, including nerve, intestine, dura mater, and cornea.

Palliative care raises patient satisfaction and reduces costs

Kaiser Permanente’s home-based palliative care program increased patient satisfaction and decreased emergency department visits, inpatient admissions, and costs, according to an innovation profile in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Innovations Exchange.
“In-home palliative care allows more patients to die at home, leading to higher satisfaction and lower acute care utilization and costs” notes that the program uses an interdisciplinary team of providers to manage symptoms and pain, provide emotional and spiritual support, and educate patients and family members on an ongoing basis about changes in the patient’s condition.
Other components of the program include a 24-hour nurse call center, biweekly team meetings, and bereavement services to the family after the patient dies.

More research needed to determine efficacy of maggot debridement therapy

“The efficacy of maggot debridement therapy (MDT)—a review of comparative clinical trials” concludes that “poor quality of the data used for evaluating the efficacy of MDT highlights the need for more and better designed investigations.”
The authors of the article in International Wound Journal reviewed three randomized clinical trials and five nonrandomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of sterile Lucilia sericata applied on ulcers.
The studies found that MDT was “significantly more effective than hydrogel or a mixture of conventional therapy modalities, including hydrocolloid, hydrogel and saline moistened gauze,” but the designs of the study were “suboptimal.”

Use tool to select correct antimicrobial dressing

“Ensuring that the correct antimicrobial dressing is selected,” in Wounds International, emphasizes that dressing selection should be based on assessment of the microbial burden in the wound, the wound type, and the location and condition of the wound.
The article includes a checklist that may be helpful for deciding on the level of bacterial burden in a wound. The checklist is used to determine four levels of risk—colonized: at risk; localized infection; spreading infection; and systemic infection. Each level has a corresponding definition.
A table of antimicrobial dressings reviews the antimicrobial agent and dressing form, and the article ends with a case study.

Read More

By Nancy J. Brent, MS, RN, JD

Often nurses get named in a lawsuit when they are involved in clearly negligent conduct that causes an injury to or the death of a patient. Examples include administering the wrong medication to the wrong patient or not positioning a patient correctly in the operative suite prior to surgery. Sometimes, however, the negligent behavior of a nurse is not as clear to the nurse involved in the care of the patient.
That was apparently the circumstance in the reported case, Olsten Health Services, Inc v. Cody.¹ In September 2000, Mr. Cody was the victim of a crime that resulted in paraplegia. He was admitted to a rehabilitation center and discharged on November 15, 2000. His physician ordered daily home health care services in order to monitor his “almost healed” Stage 2 pressure ulcer.² The home health care agency assigned a registered nurse (RN) to Mr. Cody and, after Mr. Cody’s healthcare insurance company would not approve daily visits, a reduced visit plan was approved by Mr. Cody’s physician.

A progressive problem

On November 16, 2000, the nurse visited Mr. Cody for the first time. During that visit, she did an admission assessment and noted that the pressure ulcer, located at the area
of the tailbone, measured 5 cm by 0.4 cm wide and 0.2 cm deep. She believed the pressure ulcer could be completely healed within 3 weeks. The nurse called Mr. Cody’s physician and left him a voice message concerning her visit and her findings.
On November 19, a second visit took place and the nurse observed and documented that Mr. Cody’s pressure ulcer was “100%” pink and no odor was detected.
On November 20, she attempted another visit but did not see Mr. Cody because the front gate surrounding his home was locked. The nurse buzzed the gate doorbell several times to no avail. She left a note on the front gate for the Cody family and left a voice message for Mr. Cody’s physician.

The next visit took place on November 21. The pressure ulcer was now only “90% pink” and had a “fetid” odor; this condition did not improve over the next 24 hours. The nurse documented this fact in her nurses’ notes. Again, she left a voice mail message for the physician concerning these findings.

The nurse could not get into the house on November 23, the next scheduled visit, so she again left a note on the house gate and left a voice mail message for the physician.
On November 24, the home health care nurse saw Mr. Cody and observed the pressure ulcer to be “90% pink” but the “fetid” odor was still present. In addition, Mr. Cody’s right lower extremity was swollen. She was concerned that the wound care that was to be done by the family or the health aide was not being done. Even so, she did not contact Mr. Cody’s physician or the patient again until November 27.

Mr. Cody’s pressure ulcer on November 27 had no odor but the home health aide who was also caring for Mr. Cody told the nurse that he was “very cold and having chills.” The nurse did not document this reported observation in her nurses’ notes.
Attempts to visit Mr. Cody on November 28 and 29 were again unsuccessful because of the locked gate at the front of the house. No one answered the buzzer, either. The nurse left another note on the house gate and left a voice mail message for the physician.

When the nurse saw Mr. Cody on November 30, she observed that the ulcer had “serious changes”: an increase in the serous drainage from the wound; the wound had a “fetid” odor; 80% of the wound was necrotic; the necrotic tissue was “undermined”; and the wound was significantly larger—9 cm by 8 cm wide and 1 cm deep.³ She left a voice mail message for Mr. Cody’s physician, but did not alter her visits to Mr. Cody’s home or attempt to see him over the next 2 days.

Admission to hospital

When the nurse did visit Mr. Cody on December 1, the pressure ulcer consisted of 40% necrotic tissue. She then told the family to take Mr. Cody to the physician’s office. Later that same day he was admitted to the hospital with a Stage 4 pressure ulcer that reached his tailbone. After 3 weeks of treatment, the ulcer measured 20 cm by 30 cm.

Mr. Cody endured many procedures during the following years to treat his
ulcer, but it never really healed. A “flap” enclosure was done to try to cover the wound.

Lawsuit

Mr. Cody sued the home health care company, alleging that the employees breached the standard of care by failing to appropriately diagnose and treat/or to prevent the formation or aggravation of pressure ulcers, resulting in severe and significant injury to him.

Verdict

The Florida Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s verdict in favor of Mr. Cody—a $3,050,000 verdict in economic damages⁴—on several legal bases, the most important for the purposes of this article being that the home health care agency and its employees were negligent in the care of Mr. Cody.

Key testimony

Key testimony in reaching this verdict came from the expert testimony of an RN and certified wound care expert. The nurse expert testified unequivocally that the home health care nurse breached the standard of nursing care. She said that not contacting the physician personally about Mr. Cody’s condition and the family being overwhelmed about his condition, but instead leaving voice mail messages on an answering machine, did not meet the standard of nursing care in this situation.
Additionally, the nurse expert testified that the nurse caring for Mr. Cody failed to recognize the symptoms of his deteriorating condition and did not intervene when necessary to avoid the infection he suffered from the deteriorating wound, and that her failure to do so resulted in the development of the Stage 4 ulcer that never healed.

Take-away points

So, what does this case tell you as a wound care professional caring for someone who has a pressure ulcer?

• Meet the standard of care. You must always meet the standard of care when caring for a patient. That means your care must be what other ordinary, reasonable, and prudent nurses caring for a patient with a decubitus ulcer would do in the same or similar circumstances in the same or similar community. Clearly, the nurse did not meet this standard in her care of Mr. Cody.
• Document accurately and completely. Remember that the nurse did not document Mr. Cody’s condition when the home health aide reported it to her. This omission may not only have compromised Mr. Cody’s care. If the communication during the trial became an “I told her”/”I don’t remember being told” debate when each party testified about the communication, it surely caused a rift between the aide and the nurse during the trial proceedings. Such a disagreement between defendant employees always helps a plaintiff’s case.
• Know that photographs can be used in court. This case used a specific form of evidence, demonstrative evidence: photographs taken of the pressure ulcer, which were admitted into evidence during the trial. The photographs were testified to by the wound care expert. In addition to her testimony, this evidence further showed the “natural and continual progression” of the ulcer as it existed on December 1, 2000.
• Understand the importance of expert testimony. In professional negligence cases, expert testimony is essential to establish the standard of care and to provide an opinion as to whether the standard of care was met or breached, the breach of which led to the injury to the patient. Typically, the attorney of a nurse cited in this type of case would want to use a certified wound care expert to support the care given. Apparently, the home care agency’s expert witness was not as convincing as the expert witness’s testimony for Mr. Cody.

Indeed, in this case, the expert witness’s testimony was invaluable and essentially secured a verdict for the plaintiff. Not only was the expert witness board certified but her testimony was credible, based on the evidence presented, and given after a careful review of Mr. Cody’s medical records, admission and discharge summaries from hospitals and health centers that provided care to Mr. Cody, the depositions of several doctors and nurses, and Mr. Cody’s deposition.

• Know your limits. The nurse’s conduct also stresses the importance of another legal principle—knowing the limits of your abilities and capabilities. Nowhere in the reported opinion are the RN’s qualifications listed or a reason given as to why she was selected to care for Mr. Cody. It is assumed she was not certified. Even basic nursing guidelines for wound care and communication to the physician were not followed. Why, then, did she agree to take this assignment? She did so not only at her own folly but to the detriment of Mr. Cody.
• Protect your patient. Last, and by no means least, this case stands for the principle that if you simply document something in the patient’s record that
  is important regarding the patient’s well-being and you just leave voice mail messages for a physician about that “something,” such conduct is not adequate. By simply leaving messages and notes, this RN violated an age-old principle in the law of professional negligence.⁵

Your duty in any situation in which the patient is at risk for a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm is to prevent that harm from happening insofar as humanly possible. What those specific steps might be will depend on the circumstances and your patient’s condition. Remember, liability is always fact-specific. Although legal principles exist, how each applies to a particular situation may vary.

Mr. Cody was clearly at risk for a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm—the further deterioration of his pressure ulcer. The nurse would only have had to intervene sooner by, for example (and as testified to by the expert witness), personally talking with his physician, visiting the patient more frequently when the deterioration began, contacting social services to help the family with its “overwhelmed” feelings, and following up with the home health aide’s observations of Mr. Cody.

Think about this, too: Nowhere in the court of appeals’ record was it indicated that Mr. Cody’s family or the physician ever received the notes or voice mail messages left by the nurse.⁶ At a minimum, wouldn’t you as the nurse want to follow up and check if those communications had been received?

References
1. Olsten Health Services, Inc. v. Cody, 979 So. 2d 1221 (FL District Ct of Appeals) 2008. (pages 1-8). http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1160380.html. Accessed June 22, 2012.

2. Id. at 1.

3. Id. at 4.

4. Id. at 2. The doctrine of comparative negligence was used in this case. This doctrine, adopted by most states, reduces a plaintiff’s recovery of money proportionally to the plaintiff’s degree of fault in causing the injury that is the basis of the suit (Blacks Law Dictionary, Second Pocket Edition, Bryan Garner, ed. St. Paul, MN: West; 2001). In this case, the home health care agency’s fault was attributed to be 70%. Mr. Cody’s degree of fault was assessed by the jury at 30%, most probably due to the inability of the home care nurse to be given access into the house on the days she visited and the family not providing the wound care required by Mr. Cody’s decubitus ulcer.

5. This age-old principle was established in a 1965 Illinois case, Darling v. Charleston Community Hospital, 211 N.E. 2d 353 (IL Supreme CT) 1965.

6. Tammelleo D. Treatment of decubitus ulcers botched: verdict for $3,050,000. Nurs Law Regan Rep. 2008;49(1):1.

Nancy J. Brent is an attorney in Wilmette, Illinois. The information in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Read More

By: Patricia A. Slachta, PhD, RN, ACNS-BC, CWOCN

Wound care has come a long way in just a few decades. With our expanded knowledge of wound healing and recent advances in treatment, we’re now able to assess wounds more accurately, recognize wound-related problems sooner, provide better interventions, and reduce morbidity.

To bring you up to date on current evidence-based wound management, this article focuses on assessing patients with chronic wounds, optimizing wound healing with effective wound-bed preparation, and selecting an appropriate dressing.

Wound chronicity and cause

Developing an appropriate plan of care hinges on conducting a thorough, accurate evaluation of both the patient and the wound. The first step is to determine whether the wound is acute or chronic.
•    A chronic wound is one that fails to heal within a reasonable time—usually
3 months.
•    An acute wound heals more quickly, causing minimal functional loss in the part of the body with the wound.
Identifying the cause of the wound also is essential. If the wound etiology is unknown, explore the patient’s medical history (including medication history) for clues to possible causes. Also review the patient’s history for conditions that could impede wound healing. (See What factors hamper healing? by clicking the PDF icon above)
Other important aspects of assessment include evaluating the patient’s nutritional status, quantifying the level of pain (if present), and gauging the patient’s self-care abilities.

General physical appearance

Conduct a general head-to-toe physical examination, focusing on the patient’s height, weight, and skin characteristics.

Height, weight, and weight trend

On admission, the patient’s height and weight should be measured to ensure appropriate nutritional and pharmacologic management. After a weight gain or loss, various factors may complicate wound healing. For instance, involuntary weight loss and protein-energy malnutrition may occur in both acute-care and long-term-care patients.

Especially note trends in your patient’s weight. For a long-term-care patient, a 5% weight loss over 30 days or a 10% loss over 180 days is considered involuntary. Arrange for a nutritional consult for any patient with an involuntary weight loss, as adequate nutrition is essential for general well-being and wound healing. (See A wound on the mend by clicking the PDF icon above.)

Skin color

Evaluate the patient’s skin color in light of ethnic background. If you note erythema—especially on a pressure point over a bony prominence—examine this area carefully for nonblanching erythema. Keep in mind that darkly pigmented skin doesn’t show such erythema and subsequent blanching, yet the patient may still be in jeopardy. So in dark-skinned patients, check for differences in skin color, temperature, or firmness compared to adjacent tissue; these differences may signify skin compromise.

Skin texture and turgor

Generally, healthy skin feels smooth and firm and has an even surface and good turgor (elasticity). To test turgor, gently grasp and pull up a fold of skin on a site such as the anterior chest below the clavicle. Does the skin return to place almost immediately after you release it, or does it stand up (“tent”)? Tenting indicates dehydration. But keep in mind that skin loses elasticity with age, so elderly patients normally have decreased turgor.

Skin temperature

With normal circulatory status, the skin is warm and its temperature is similar bilaterally. Areas of increased warmth or coolness suggest infection or compromised circulation. Be sure to check the temperature of skin surrounding the wound.

Wound assessment

Proper wound assessment can significantly influence patient outcome. Measure the wound carefully and document the condition of the wound bed. Remember that accurate descriptions are essential for guiding ongoing wound care. Repeat wound measurement and wound-bed assessment at least weekly, after the wound bed has been cleaned and debrided.

Keep in mind that assessing a chronic wound can be challenging. Wounds commonly have irregular shapes that can change quickly. Also, the multiple clinicians caring for the same patient may each describe the wound a bit differently.

Wound location

Note the precise anatomic location of the wound, as this can influence the wound care plan. A venous ulcer on the lower leg, for instance, requires different care than an arterial ulcer in the same site or a pressure ulcer on the ischium.

Circumference and depth

Use a paper or plastic measuring device to measure wound circumference and depth in centimeters (cm) or millimeters (mm). To promote accurate assessment of healing, be sure to use the same reference points each time you measure the wound.

You can use several methods to measure circumference. The most commonly used method of measurement is done in the head to toe direction. Measure the wound at its greatest length in that direction & measure the width at a 90 degree angle, at the widest point of the wound. Then multiply these two measurements (greatest length x greatest width) to obtain the total wound area. Although such linear measurements are imprecise, they yield gross information relative to wound healing when repeated over time.

Classify wound depth as partial thickness or full thickness.
•    Partial-thickness wounds are limited to the skin layers and don’t penetrate the dermis. They usually heal by reepithelialization, in which epidermal cells regenerate and cover the wound. Abrasions, lacerations, and blisters are examples of partial-thickness wounds.
•    Full-thickness wounds involve tissue loss below the dermis.
(Note: Pressure ulcers usually are classified by a four-stage system and diabetic foot ulcers by a grading system. Both systems are beyond this article’s scope.)
Measure and record wound depth based on the deepest area of tissue loss. To measure depth, gently place an appropriate device (such as a foam-tipped applicator) vertically in the deepest part of the wound, and mark the applicator at the patient’s skin level. Then measure from the end of the applicator to the mark to obtain depth.

Surrounding skin and tissue

Inspect for and document any erythema, edema, or ecchymosis within 4 cm of the wound edges, and reevaluate for these signs frequently. Because compromised skin near the wound is at risk for breakdown, preventive measures may be necessary.

Appearance of wound-bed tissue

Document viable tissue in the wound bed as granulation, epithelial, muscle, or subcutaneous tissue. Granulation tissue is connective tissue containing multiple small blood vessels, which aid rapid healing of the wound bed; appearing red or pink, it commonly looks shiny and granular. Epithelial tissue consists of regenerated epidermal cells across the wound bed; it may be shiny and silvery.

Check for nonviable tissue (also called necrotic, slough, or fibrin slough tissue), which may impede wound healing. It may vary in color from black or tan to yellow, and may adhere firmly or loosely to the wound bed. (See Picturing a necrotic wound by clicking the PDF icon above.)

Be sure to document the range of colors visible throughout the wound. Identify the color that covers the largest percentage of the wound bed. This color—and its significance—guide dressing selection.

Wound exudate

Document the amount, color, and odor of exudate (drainage) in the wound. Exudate with high protease levels and low growth factor levels may impede healing.

If the wound is covered by an occlusive dressing, assess exudate after the wound has been cleaned. Describe the amount of exudate as none, minimal, moderate, or heavy.

Describe exudate color as serous, serosanguineous, sanguineous, or purulent. Serous exudate is clear and watery, with no debris or blood present. Serosanguineous exudate is clear, watery, and tinged pink or pale red, denoting presence of blood. Sanguineous exudate is bloody, indicating active bleeding. Purulent exudate may range from yellow to green to brown or tan.

Describe wound odor as absent, faint, moderate, or strong. Note whether the odor is present only during dressing removal, if it disappears after the dressing is discarded, or if it permeates the room.

Wound edges

Wound edges indicate the epithelialization trend and suggest the possible cause and chronicity of the wound. The edges should attach to the wound bed. Edges that are rolled (a condition called epibole) indicate a chronic wound, in which epithelial cells are unable to adhere to a moist, healthy wound bed and can’t migrate across and resurface the wound.

Undermining and tracts

Gently probe around the wound edges and in the wound bed to check for undermining and tracts. Undermining, which may occur around the edges, presents as a space between the intact skin and wound bed (resembling a roof over part of the wound). It commonly results from shear forces in conjunction with sustained pressure. A tract, or tunnel, is a channel extending from one part of the wound through subcutaneous tissue or muscle to another part.

Measure the depth of a tract or undermining by inserting an appropriate device into the wound as far as it will go without forcing it. Then mark the skin on the outside where you can see or feel the applicator tip. Document your findings based on a clock face, with 12 o’clock representing the patient’s head and 6 o’clock denoting the feet. For instance, you might note “2.0-cm undermining from 7:00 to 9:00 position.”

Pain level

Ask the patient to quantify the level of pain caused by the wound, using the pain scale designated by your facility. Find out which pain-management techniques have relieved your patient’s pain in the past; as appropriate, incorporate these into a pain-management plan. Reevaluate the patient’s pain level regularly.

Wound-bed preparation

An evolving science, wound-bed preparation is crucial for minimizing or removing barriers to healing. The goal is to minimize factors that impair healing and maximize the effects of wound care. The key elements of wound-bed preparation are controlling bioburden and maintaining moisture balance. (For online resources on wound-bed preparation and other wound-care topics, see Where to get more information by clicking the PDF icon above.)

Controlling bioburden

Necrotic tissue and exudate harbor bacteria. A wound’s bioburden—the number of contaminating microbes—contributes to poor healing. All chronic wounds are considered contaminated or colonized, but not necessarily infected. In a colonized wound, healing is impeded as bacteria compete for nutrients; also, bacteria have harmful byproducts. To control bioburden, the wound must be cleaned and necrotic tissue must be debrided.

Cleaning the wound. Clean the wound before assessing it and applying a dressing. Use a noncytotoxic agent (typically, potable water, normal saline irrigating solution, or an appropriate wound-cleaning agent). Anti­septic solutions generally aren’t recommended for wound irrigation or dressings because they’re toxic to fibroblasts and other wound-repairing cells. If you must use such a solution, make sure it’s well diluted.

To ensure gentle cleaning or irrigation, pour solution over the wound bed or gently flush the wound with solution (using a 60-mL catheter-tip syringe) until the drainage clears. Know that pressurized irrigation techniques and whirlpool therapy aren’t recommended for wound cleaning because they disturb cell proliferation in the wound bed.

Debriding the wound. Debridement removes slough and necrotic tissue. Nonselective debridement techniques remove any type of tissue within the wound bed, whereas selective methods remove only necrotic tissue. (See Wound debridement techniques by clicking the PDF icon below.)

Maintaining moisture balance

To maintain moisture balance in the wound bed, you must manage exudate and keep the wound bed moist. The proper dressing (which may stay in place for days or longer) supports moist wound healing and exudate management. To minimize fluid pooling, a drain may be inserted into the wound. Negative-pressure wound therapy also may aid removal of excess exudate.

Choosing an appropriate dressing

The wound dressing plays a major role in maintaining moisture balance. Dressing selection is challenging because of the large number and variety of dressings available. Each product has specific actions, benefits, and drawbacks, so determining which dressing best suits the patient’s needs is a multifaceted process.

Dressing choice depends on such factors as wound type and appearance, exudate, presence or absence of pain, and required dressing change frequency. (See Dressings Options by clicking the PDF icon above.)

In a traditional dressing, gauze is applied in layers. The initial (contact) layer in the wound bed absorbs drainage and wicks it to the next layer; most often, this layer consists of woven cotton gauze or synthetic gauze. Remove the gauze gently, because it may be stuck to the wound or incision (especially if the gauze is cotton). For easier removal, moisten the dressing with normal saline solution to loosen it.

With a traditional dressing, the cover layer or secondary dressing is an abdominal pad with a “no-strike-through” layer next to the outside of the dressing. Be aware that wet-to-dry dressings are highly discouraged for their nonselective debriding effect and inability to provide a moist wound bed.

Reassess the patient’s wound at least weekly (after preparing the wound bed and dressing the wound) to determine healing progress. Keep in mind that wound-care management is a collaborative effort. Once you’ve assessed the patient, discuss your findings and subsequent wound management with other members of the team.

Wound care wisdom

Getting wiser about wound care will help your patients achieve good outcomes. Poor wound healing can be frustrating to patients, family members, and healthcare providers alike. Chronic wounds may necessitate lifestyle changes and lead to severe physical consequences ranging from infection to loss of function and even death. By performing careful assessment, tailoring patients’ wound care to wound etiology, and using evidence-based protocols to manage wounds, you can promote speedier wound healing, help lower morbidity, and improve quality of life.

Selected references
Bryant RA, Nix DP. Acute and Chronic Wounds: Current Management Concepts. 4th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2011.

Gardener SE, Frantz R, Hillis SL, Park H, Scherubel M. Diagnostic validity of semiquantitative swab cultures. Wounds. 2007;(19)2:31-38.

Krasner DL, Rodeheaver GT, Sibbald RG. Chronic Wound Care: A Clinical Source Book for Healthcare Professionals. 4th ed. Wayne, PA: HMP Communications; 2007.
Langemo DK, Brown G. Skin fails too: acute, chronic, and end-stage skin failure. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2006;19(4):206-211.

Langemo DK, Anderson J, Hanson D, Hunter S, Thompson P. Measuring wound length, width, and area: which technique? Adv Skin Wound Care. 2008;21:42-45.

Milne C, Armand OC, Lassie M. A comparison of collagenase to hydrogel dressings in wound debridement. Wounds. 2010:22(11):270-274.

National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline. Washington, DC: National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel; 2009.

Ovington LG. Hanging wet-to-dry dressings out to dry. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2002;15(2):79-86.

Sibbald RG, Coutts P, Woo KY. Reduction of bacterial burden and pain in chronic wounds using a new polyhexamethylene biguanide antimicrobial foam dressing—clinical trial results. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2011;24(2):78-84.

Solway DR, Consalter M, Levinson DJ. Microbial cellulose wound dressing in the treatment of skin tears in the frail elderly. Wounds. 2010:22(1):17-19.

Wound Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society. Guideline for Prevention and Management of Pressure Ulcers. Mt. Laurel, NJ: Author; 2010

Patricia A. Slachta is a Clinical Nurse Specialist at The Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii and an adjunct nursing instructor at the Technical College of the Lowcountry in Beaufort, South Carolina.

Read More