The Affordable Care Act of 2010 requires nursing homes to have an acceptable Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan within a year after the start of the QAPI regulation. While the implementation of this regulation may be a year out, now is the time to start applying its principles. Reducing pressure ulcer rates is a great program to target for a QAPI plan.
A team approach
If you decide to use pressure ulcers as your QAPI project, don’t take on your entire program at once. Break the program down into system subsets (for example, admission process, prevention program, and weekly rounds). Determining the status of your program in each subset—completed, needs improvement, or not completed—can help you prioritize which areas to target. It’s important you have support from leadership for your efforts.
I’ll use the example of the admission phase (ensuring that within the first 24 hours, skin and risk concerns are identified and a temporary plan of care is implemented) to illustrate a QAPI project. To address this area, a team was created, including representation from staff members involved with the admission process. The team then used the problem-solving model Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) to examine the process.
The first step in the PDSA cycle is to Plan. During this step, you:
• evaluate and analyze the current process to determine baseline data, which are used to measure progress
• identify system performance gaps
• determine the root cause of the performance gaps
• develop an action plan that identifies the goals, steps, responsible staff, and target dates.
In our example, the team determined that within the first 24 hours, skin inspections were being completed only 10% of the time. The root-cause analysis revealed that the admission nurses didn’t feel competent to document identified pressure ulcers or skin concerns, so they deferred it until the wound nurse was available. The team’s action plan included the following:
• Develop and educate all the facility nurses on how to complete and accurately document a skin inspection.
• Develop and implement a competency evaluation to assess the nurse’s ability to apply the knowledge at the bedside.
• Develop an ongoing plan to ensure all nurses receive this education during orientation and yearly thereafter.
The team also set the following goal:
By the end of the next quarter, 100% of admitted patients will have an accurate skin inspection completed within 24 hours of admission.
The second step of the PDSA cycle is Do. During this step, you implement and execute the plan, while documenting your observations and recording data.
In our example, the “Do” was to:
• develop and provide the skin inspection education and bedside competency evaluations
• develop an evaluation and tracking
system
• add the education to the orientation program
• add the education to the staff development calendar to be offered yearly.
The third step of the PDSA cycle is to Study: In this phase, you:
• reevaluate and analyze the system
• compare the results with the baseline data and predictions
• summarize what was learned and accomplished and what needs to be improved
• determine if another PDSA cycle is
necessary to continue to improve the system.
Once all staff had been properly educated and competency testing completed, an analysis of the rate and accuracy of the admission skin inspections done within 24 hours of admission was completed. It was found that 100% of the patients admitted had a complete skin inspection done within 24 hours. However, not all the nurses could accurately stage pressure ulcers, so it was determined that the system needed improvement to ensure accurate assessments.
The last step of the PDSA cycle is to Act. In this step, you:
• determine what changes need to be made
• modify the plan to continue to improve the system
• repeat the PDSA cycle as necessary.
In our example, the team determined the nurses needed more guidance and education on staging of pressure ulcers. Therefore, a new PDSA cycle was set to ensure the nurses are competent in this area.
Benefits for staff and patients
It may be difficult to start the QAPI project and at times the process may be stressful, but keep in mind that a successful pressure ulcer QAPI project can improve not only the quality of life and care of your patients but also morale and team building for your staff. n
Jeri Lundgren is director of clinical services at Pathway Health in Minnesota. She has beenspecializing in wound prevention and management since 1990.
At some point, most of us have encountered a bully—most commonly when we were kids. You might think that as we get older, bullying wouldn’t be a problem we have to deal with. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. In the healthcare field, bullying can be even worse than it was when we were children.
Bullying in health care takes many different forms, including fighting among different types of clinicians, managers bullying subordinates, peer-to-peer bullying and, most commonly, specialists bullying other specialists. Years ago when I realized my dream of becoming a wound care specialist, I thought other specialists would be relieved I was on board to help with the overwhelming task of spreading wound care knowledge and healing wounds. But I found out quickly that I was pretty much alone with those thoughts, and my first encounter with wound care bullies occurred.
I began to ask myself: What did I do wrong? Why are they slamming me? What did I do to them? They don’t even know me; they’ve never even talked to me. This may sound familiar to many of you, whether you’re a wound care specialist, an ostomy specialist, or a diabetes or lymphedema specialist.
Workplace bullying is defined as repeated, unreasonable actions by individuals (or a group) directed toward an employee (or group of employees) that are intended to intimidate, degrade, humiliate, or undermine. Bullying occurs for many reasons; these reasons almost always include insecurity, competition, and the desire to feel more powerful and be in control.
So how do we deal with the bullies?
• Follow the Golden Rule: Treat others as you’d like others to treat you. Don’t stoop to the bully’s level.
• Stay calm and rational. Don’t get emotional. Bullies take pleasure in manipulating people emotionally.
• Don’t lose your confidence or blame yourself. Recognize that this isn’t about you; it’s about the bully. Be proud and confident in your certification credential.
• Focus on your purpose—to provide safe, competent, high-quality care to every patient.
• Document the bullying incident. Start a diary detailing the nature of the bullying, including dates, times, places, what was said or done, and who was present. Start a file with copies of anything in print that shows harassment and bullying; hold onto copies of documents that contradict the bully’s accusations against you.
• If the bullying behavior compromises patient safety and care, report the bully.
Stopping all bullying in health care may seem like an insurmountable goal, but I believe that together we can try to stop the bullying cycle in our specialty. By setting the example and supporting each other, we can turn the focus back to healing and caring for our patients as a team, not as one practitioner against the world.
Actions speak louder than words. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.”
Donna Sardina, RN, MHA, WCC, CWCMS, DWC, OMS
Editor-in-Chief Wound Care Advisor
Cofounder, Wound Care Education Institute
Plainfield, Illinois
By Rosalyn Jordan, RN, BSN, MSc, CWOCN, WCC, and Marci Christian, BBE
Any patient with a fecal or urinary ostomy may experience complications on the skin surface around the stoma. These complications may occur lifelong, although they’re more common during the first 5 years after the initial ostomy surgery. Causative factors include infection, trauma, certain diseases, and chemical irritation; most of these problems stem from the pouching system or pouch leakage.
Peristomal skin complications can cause a wide range of signs and symptoms, from skin discoloration to polyp-like growths, from erythema to full-thickness wounds. They can lead to discomfort, pain, poor self-image, social isolation, and impaired quality of life, not to mention additional care costs.
Incidence and types of these complications are hard to compare or contrast across multiple patients. Until recently, no standardized assessment or documentation tools were available to characterize or define complications. For this reason, reported rates ranged widely, from 10% to 70%. And because no designated common language or categories related to peristomal skin complications existed, documentation was inconsistent.
In the late 2000s, a group of nurses experienced in caring for ostomy patients worked with the World Council of Enterostomal Therapists to develop a resource called the Ostomy Skin Tool, which clinicians can use to categorize and describe peristomal skin complications in a consistent, objective manner. The tool also provides a common language for documentation.
The Ostomy Skin Tool has three major assessment domains—discoloration (D), erosion/ulceration (E), and tissue overgrowth (T), known collectively as DET. The DET combined rating ranges from normal, rated 0, to the worst condition possible, rated 15. Mild DET complications are documented as less than 4, moderate as less than 7, and severe as 8 or higher. (See Using the Ostomy Skin Tool by clicking the PDF icon above.)
The tool describes four categories of peristomal complications:
• chemical irritation
• mechanical trauma
• disease-related complications
• infection-related complications.
Chemical irritation
Chemical irritation can stem from irritants (as in contact dermatitis) or allergic reactions (allergic dermatitis). The most likely cause of chemical dermatitis is effluent leakage (feces or urine) from the colostomy, ileostomy, or urostomy, in which effluent comes in contact with peristomal skin. Other potential causes include contact with soap, certain adhesives, and adhesive removers.
The major treatment of chemical irritation is identification and removal of the offending agent, followed by patient and caregiver education on the new pouching procedure the patient must use. Follow-up assessment also is recommended. In a 2010 study that followed 89 patients for 1 year after ostomy surgery, about 50% of subjects experienced peristomal skin complications, most of them from pouch leakage. Another investigator estimated that 85% of ostomy patients experience pouch leakage at some time during their lives. Pouch leakage usually occurs when stool is extremely liquid (for instance, ileostomy effluent). Other causes of pouch leakage include wearing a pouch more than half full of effluent and abdominal contours that aren’t level. Besides changes in the pouching system, treatment may entail adding products to the pouching system or removing certain agents.
Some patients experience allergic dermatitis in reaction to products used in the pouching system (such as skin barriers, belts, pouch closures, or adhesives). However, allergic dermatitis is rare. One 2010 study suggested allergic reactions to these products occur in only about 0.6% of patients with peristomal skin irritation. Most major ostomy product manufacturers provide a patch test on request to help identify allergic conditions. Once the offending product is discontinued, allergic dermatitis should resolve rapidly.
Mechanical trauma
Mechanical trauma usually results from either the pouching system itself or its removal. It also may result from harsh or multiple skin-barrier removals, pressure from convex rings or pouches, and abrasive cleansing techniques. Some researchers believe the stronger the adhesive barrier and the more often a pouch is changed, the greater the risk of epidermal damage.
Mechanical trauma may present as a partial-thickness ulcer caused by pressure, shear, friction, tearing, or skin stripping. Patients with fragile skin are susceptible to mechanical trauma, so less aggressive pouching systems may be preferred for them. Of course, if the pouching system is changed, the patient or caregiver needs to learn about the new system.
Disease-related complications
Disease-related peristomal complications may be linked to preexisting skin conditions, such as psoriasis, eczema (atopic dermatitis), or seborrheic dermatitis. Hyperplasia also may occur. This overgrowth of cells, which may appear as gray or reddish brown pseudoverrucous lesions, usually is linked to urinary ostomies, although it can occur with fecal ostomies as well. Vinegar soaks are the recommended treatment, in addition to a change in the pouching system and corresponding patient education.
Occasionally, other disease-related complications occur, including primary adenocarcinoma of the peristomal skin and peristomal pyoderma gangrenosum, a painful and problematic condition that presents as peristomal ulcers. Ulcer borders are well-defined with a bluish purple coloration at the edges. Infection must be ruled out, as this condition usually is linked to an autoimmune condition. Treatment includes pain management and, in most cases, a topical corticosteroid. Crohn’s disease also may manifest as a peristomal skin ulcer.
Infection-related complications
Infection-related complications may be bacterial or fungal. Two common peristomal skin infections are folliculitis and Candida fungal infections. An infection of the hair follicle that causes pustules, folliculitis usually stems from traumatic hair pulling in the peristomal area during pouch removal. It may warrant a prescribed antibiotic, along with patient teaching regarding proper hair removal using an electric razor.
Candida infections may arise because peristomal skin provides a warm, dark, moist environment that promotes fungal growth. These infections appear as erythema with pustules or papules and satellite lesions. Treatment usually involves antifungal powder and use of the crusting technique to secure the pouching system. (See Using the crusting technique by clicking the PDF icon above.)
Management
Many complications are well advanced by the time patients seek assistance, perhaps because they don’t understand the significance of their symptoms and think they can manage the problem themselves. In some cases, they don’t know where to turn for assistance. Commonly, the complication progresses to the point where the patient goes to the emergency department or (particularly during the immediate postoperative period) needs to be readmitted for treatment. The best way to manage peristomal skin complications is to prevent them in the first place. (See Preventing peristomal skin complications by clicking the PDF icon above.)
Patient education
Over the past 20 years, hospital stays for ostomy surgery patients have decreased from about 2 weeks to less than 5 days. Reduced stays decrease the time available for caregivers to teach patients and family members how to empty and change the pouch. They need alternative education covering (among other topics) how to recognize peristomal skin complications and when to seek help. Not only do these complications require vigilant self-observation, but many patients don’t understand their implications or how rapidly they can worsen. In some cases, the first symptoms are itching and redness under the skin barrier. Fortunately, some patients may know or remember that itching, burning, stinging, reddened, or weeping peristomal skin requires professional attention. They can avoid serious complications by seeking assistance early, such as right after noticing pouch leakage.
Early treatment can reduce the cost of treatment. In a 2012 study, researchers estimated care costs related to peristomal skin complications for a 7-week treatment period, using the Ostomy Skin Tool as a reference. Severe complications (those with a DET score above 8) cost six times more to treat than mild cases (those with a DET score below 4) and 4.5 times more than moderate cases.
Along with early intervention by a trained ostomy care specialist, self-assessment by ostomy patients promotes a better quality of life, reduces pain, and may decrease care costs. Clinicians’ use of the Ostomy Skin Tool to assess and document peristomal skin complications promotes more reliable, objective, comparable assessment data for reporting.
Selected references
Al-Niaimi F, Lyon CC. Primary adenocarcinoma in peristomal skin: a case study. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2010;56(1):45-7.
Burch J. Management of stoma complications. Nurs Times. 2011;107(45):17-8, 20.
Jemec GB, Martins L, Claessens I, et al. Assessing peristomal skin changes in ostomy patients: validation of the Ostomy Skin Tool. Br J Dermatol. 2011; 164;330-5.
Jones T, Springfield T, Brudwick M, Ladd A. Fecal ostomies: practical management for the home health clinician. Home Healthc Nurse. 2011;29(5):306-17.
Martins L, Samai O, Fernandez A, et al. Maintaining healthy skin around an ostomy: peristomal skin disorders and self-assessment. Gastrointest Nurs. 2011;
9(2):9-13.
Martins L, Tavernelli K, Serrano JLC. Introducing a peristomal skin assessment tool: The Ostomy Skin Tool. World Council Enterostomal Therapists J. 2008;28(2):3-13.
Meisner S, Lehur P, Moran B, et al. Peristomal skin complications are common, expensive, and difficult to manage: a population based cost modeling study. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37813.
Omura Y, Yamabe M, Anazawa S. Peristomal skin disorders in patients with intestinal and urinary ostomies: influence of adhesive forces of various hydrocolloid wafer skin barriers. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2010;37(3):289-98.
Ratliff CR. Early peristomal skin complications reported by WOC nurses. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2010;37(5):505-10.
Shabbir J, Britton DC. Stomal complications: a literature overview. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(10):958- 64.
Wound, Ostomy, Continence Clinical Practice Ostomy Subcommittee. Peristomal skin complications: Best practice for clinicians. Mt. Laurel, NJ; 2007.
The authors work for RecoverCare, LLC, in Louisville, Kentucky. Rosalyn Jordan is director of clinical education and Marci Christian is a clinical associate product specialist.
At one time or another, all wound care professionals encounter a chronic wound, defined as a wound that fails to heal in an orderly and timely manner. Globally, about 67 million people (1% to 5% of the world’s population) suffer chronic wounds. In the United States, chronic wounds affect 6.5 million people and cost more than $25 billion annually to treat. (more…)
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.
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…)
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.
Each month, Apple Bites brings you a tool you can apply in your daily practice.
Description
• Nonsterile dressings protect open wounds from contamination and absorb drainage.
• Clean aseptic technique should be used to change nonsterile dressings.
• In the event of multiple wounds, each wound is considered a separate treatment. (more…)
Editor’s note: Part 1 of this series, published in the September-October issue, discussed lymphedema pathology and diagnosis. This article, Part 2, covers treatment.
Traditional treatment approaches
Traditionally, lymphedema treatment has been approached without a clear understanding of the underlying structure and function of lymphatic tissues. Ineffective traditional treatments include elevation, elastic garments, pneumatic pumps, surgery, diuretics, and benzopyrones (such as warfarin). Because many traditional treatments are still overused and some may be appropriate for limited use, it’s important for clinicians to understand these approaches.
Elevation
As a sole therapy for lymphedema, elevation of the affected part provides only short-lived results. Ever-increasing macromolecular wastes retain water against the effects of gravity. Increased interstitial colloid osmotic pressure must be addressed by interventions targeted at improving lymphatic function—not just a position change. Otherwise, lymphedema will progress. Furthermore, elevation alone is impractical, promotes deconditioning, and alters lifestyle for prolonged periods.
Elastic garments
Elastic garments prove inadequate because they attempt to treat lymphedema with compression alone. Medically correct garments are engineered with thoughtful attention to high-quality textiles and offer gradient support, which promotes proximal flow. However, without precise tissue stimulation leading to improved lymphangioactivity (lymph-vessel pulsation), macromolecular wastes can’t be removed.
Interstitial pressure increases caused by compression garments impede further fluid accumulation. When these garments are removed, the spontaneous girth increase causes an imprecise fit, and the garment rapidly leads to a countertherapeutic effect. Furthermore, compression garments don’t combat the osmotic forces generated by ever-increasing interstitial wastes. Except in patients diagnosed with stage 0 or stage 1 lymphedema, disease progression involving metaplasia ensues. Although elastic compression garments are a cornerstone of long-term management, they shouldn’t be used as a stand-alone treatment.
Pneumatic compression pump
Formerly, the pneumatic compression pump (PCP) was considered the standard of care for lymphedema. However, when inflated, the pump doesn’t increase the frequency of lymph-vessel contraction or enhance lymph capillary absorption. What’s more, accelerated fibrosis development and rapid tissue refilling occur when a PCP is removed. Also, PCP use disregards the ipsilateral territory of the excised regional nodes, effectively dumping fluid from the leg into the trunk. A PCP is appropriate only when nothing else is available, as it may worsen the patient’s condition.
Surgery
Surgical approaches to treating lymphedema involve either excisional (debulking) or microsurgical techniques. The most extensive surgical technique, the radical Charles procedure, completely debulks all involved tissue down to the muscle fascia. Split-thickness grafts are then harvested from excised skin and donor sites, and applied to the fascia to achieve so-called limb reduction.
Most debulking procedures have been applied to lower-extremity lymphedema and offer poor cosmetic results. Less radical surgeries favor long incisions, preserving the skin but excising subcutaneous edematous portions to reduce girth. Although less cosmetically alarming, these procedures effectively amputate the subcutaneous space where lymph vessels reside. Other surgical approaches are beyond the scope of this article.
Generally, surgery isn’t a good approach for any patient, as it’s linked to significant morbidity, such as skin necrosis, infection, and sensory changes. In the future, less invasive procedures may be available that yield significant improvement without these adverse effects.
Diuretics
Although diuretics are prescribed appropriately to address water-rich edemas of venous origin, they disregard the fact that lymphedema is a protein-rich edema. Long-term, high-dose diuretic therapy leads to treatment-resistant limbs, similar to those that have received intensive pneumatic compression.
Benzopyrones
Benzopyrones such as warfarin decrease swelling by combating protein accumulation in fluid. Such drugs have undergone clinical trials abroad. Their mechanism is to promote macrophage migration into interstitial fluid, as well as subsequent proteolysis. Due to significant risk of liver damage or failure, benzopyrones haven’t been approved for treating lymphedema.
Complete decongestive therapy: The current treatment approach
Currently, the gold standard for lymphedema treatment is complete decongestive therapy (CDT). Michael Foeldi and Etelka Foeldi, who originated this method, discovered a unique symbiotic relationship among five distinct modalities that addresses the challenges of lymphedema treatment. In 1989, CDT was brought to the United States by Robert Lerner and has become the mainstay of lymphedema treatment here.
CDT is a two-phase approach involving an intensive clinical effort followed by a semi-intensive home-care program geared toward autonomous management, stabilization, and continual improvement. It involves manual lymph drainage (MLD), compression bandaging, exercise, skin and nail hygiene, and self-care education. (See Phases of complete decongestive therapy by clicking the PDF icon above.)
Manual lymph drainage
A type of soft-tissue mobilization, MLD provides skin traction, stimulating superficial lymph vessels and nodes. Lymph capillaries contain large inter-endothelial inlets called swinging tips, akin to overlapping shingles. Each overlapping cell is tethered to the interstitial matrix by anchoring filaments, so that fluid increases cause immediate distention and lymph inflow. Manual skin traction using MLD promotes greater lymph fluid uptake by stretching these filamentous structures, opening the swinging tips.
MLD also provides extrinsic stimulation of the lymphangion (the segment of a lymph vessel between a distal and proximal valve), drawing fluid into the system at the capillary level and promoting flow at the vessel level toward regional lymph nodes. Usually, these segments contract and relax in a rhythmic fashion six times per minute. MLD triples this output to 18 or 20 times per minute, greatly enhancing systemic transport.
MLD requires intensive daily treatment sessions to strengthen collateral flow as a pathway to circumventing surgical or developmental lymphatic disruption. Treatment strategies further recruit more deeply situated lymphatics such as the thoracic duct, as well as lumbar trunks that empty at the juncture of the internal jugular and subclavian veins to improve global uptake. MLD thus stimulates deeper vessel angioactivity to help drain the superficial vessels that drain toward them.
Compression bandaging
Compression bandaging provides tissue support after MLD to prevent reflux, slow new fluid formation, and mechanically soften fibrotic areas. Bandaging techniques provide a high working pressure to harness the muscle and joint pumps as a propellant for lymph while resisting retrograde flow created by gravity and centrifugal forces during movement. Pure cotton materials coupled with specialized padding create a soft, castlike environment, which confines swollen tissues without constriction. By relying on high working pressure and low resting pressures to decrease limb swelling, this strategy achieves greater control over intensity (level of compression/pressure exerted), with little to no soft-tissue injury or discomfort.
The patient wears this bulky inelastic complex after each MLD treatment until the next day’s session to ensure limb-volume reduction in a stable, linear fashion. Once a plateau is reached, tissue stabilization and self-care education are the goals of additional sessions.
Exercise
Exercise always must be done with adequate support to counteract fluid formation. During the intensive CDT phase, limbs are bandaged to provide complete around-the-clock containment. Gentle exercises encourage blood flow into the muscle; during muscle contraction, this creates a favorable internal pressure that effectively squeezes the subcutaneous space between the bandage wall and muscle. Because every bandage strives to provide a gradient of support, fluid tends to drain proximally to the bandage—in most cases, to the trunk.
Skin and nail hygiene
Without intact, well-hydrated skin, cellulitic infections occur in many lymphedema patients whose immune response has been diminished by regional lymphadenectomy or inherited deficiencies. To prevent infection caused by avoidable external events, patients receive clear guidelines to reinforce appropriate behavior. As most cellulitis results from resident skin pathogens (streptococci and staphylococci), maintaining a low skin pH helps control colonization. Ways to avoid recurrent infections include maintaining an acid mantle on the skin using low-pH-formulated lotions and avoiding injury from daily tasks that may scratch, puncture, burn, or abrade the skin. Patients should receive lists of self-care precautions at the time of treatment.
Self-care education
Because lymphedema is a chronic condition, patients must receive self-care education for daily management to avoid lymphedema destabilization, which can lead to tissue saturation and subsequent skin changes. Therapists must provide patients with appropriate self-care tools and knowledge to maintain adequate treatment results. Teaching topics include how to apply and remove compression garments and bandages and how to exercise safely, preserve skin integrity, monitor for infection, and respond appropriately to infection and significant changes in limb mobility.
An underrecognized and mistreated problem
Lymphedema remains an underrecognized and mistreated condition, even though CDT yields safe, reliable results. Early detection, accurate staging, proper diagnosis, and appropriate treatment can slow the inevitable progression of lymphedema. Wound care specialists should adapt wound therapy to address not just the wound but the edematous environment responsible for delayed wound resolution.
Selected references
Al-Niaimi F, Cox N. Cellulitis and lymphedema: a vicious cycle. J Lymphoedema. 2009;4:38-42.
Browse N, Burnand KG, Mortimer PS. Diseases of the Lymphatics. London: Hodder Arnold; 2003.
Casley-Smith JR, Casley-Smith JR. Modern Treatment for Lymphoedema. 5th ed. The Lymphoedema Association of Australia; 1997.
Cooper R, White R. Cutaneous infections in lymphoedema. J Lymphoedema. 2009:4:44-8.
Foeldi M. Foeldi’s Textbook of Lymphology: For Physicians and Lymphedema Therapists. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2012.
International Society of Lymphology. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema. Consensus Document of the International Society of Lymphology. Lymphology. 2009 Jun;42(2):51-60.
Leduc A, Bastin R, Bourgeois P. Lymphatic reabsorption of proteins and pressotherapies. Progress in Lymphology XI. 1988:591-2.
National Lymphedema Network Medical Advisory Committee. Position Statement: Lymphedema Risk Reduction Practices. Revised May 2012. http://www.lymphnet.org/pdfDocs/nlnriskreduction.pdf. Accessed September 5, 2012.
Pappas CJ, O’Donnell TF Jr. Long-term results of compression treatment for lymphedema. J Vasc Surg. 1992 Oct;16(4):555-62.
Whittlinger H. Textbook of Dr. Vodder’s Manual Lymphatic Drainage. Vol 1. 7th ed. New York, NY: Thieme; 2003.
Steve Norton is cofounder of Lymphedema & Wound Care Education and executive director of the Norton School of Lymphatic Therapy in Matawan, New Jersey.
Lymphedema is characterized by regional immune dysfunction, distorted limb contours, and such skin changes as papillomas, hyperkeratosis, and increased girth. The condition may involve the limbs, face, neck, trunk, and external genitals; its effects may include psychological distress. For optimal patient management, clinicians must understand what causes lymphedema and how it’s diagnosed and treated.
This two-part series provides an overview of lymphedema. Part 1 covers etiology, pathology, and diagnosis. Part 2, which will appear in the November-
December issue, will focus on treatment.
Causes of lymphedema
Lymphedema occurs when protein-rich fluid accumulates in the interstitium due to impaired lymphatic function. Proteins, other macromolecular wastes, and water constitute lymphatic loads. These wastes rely on specially structured absorptive and transport structures in peripheral regions for their return to central circulation.
When lymph stasis prevails, inflammatory processes and lymphostatic fibrosis trigger tissue-density changes, further entrapping superficial vessels and accelerating mechanical insufficiency. (See Physiologic changes caused by lymphatic disruption by clicking the PDF icon above.)
Classifying lymphedema
Lymphedema can be primary or secondary. Primary lymphedema either is congenital (present at birth) or arises around puberty. In the vast majority of cases, it is associated with structural changes in the lymphatic system and isn’t associated with another disease or condition. Most structural changes (87%) manifest before age 35 and cause hypoplasia of vessels and nodes. Syndromes involving hyperplasia, node fibrosis, or aplasia also may occur, although they’re much less common. Dysplasia (either hypoplasia, hyperplasia, or aplasia) predisposes drainage regions to inadequate lymph collection, resulting in edema and secondary tissue changes, such as chronic inflammation and reactive fibrosis. Genetic variability in lymphatic constitution may explain why seemingly similar patients receiving the same surgical protocol have different lymphedema risks over time. Secondary lymphedema stems from a significant insult to lymphatic tissues, as from lymphadenectomy, radiation therapy, trauma, infection, or cancer. It commonly results from direct trauma to regional nodes or vessel structures. Slow degradation of lymphatic function also occurs when adjacent tissues (such as superficial and deep veins) become diseased, when cellulitis occurs, or when accumulations
of adipose or radiation fibrosis mechanical-ly disrupt drainage of skin lymphatics.
Lymphedema stages
Lymphedema progresses in stages, which involve secondary connective-tissue disease combined with disturbed fluid update and transport. These conditions cause a universal and classic clinical picture.
• Stage 0 (latency stage) is marked by reduced transport capacity and functional reserve. The patient has no visible or palpable edema, but has such subjective complaints as heaviness, tightness, and waterlogged sensations.
• In Stage 1 edema (reversible lymphedema), edema decreases with elevation. Pitting edema is present, but fibrosis is absent.
• During Stage 2 (spontaneously irreversible lymphedema), lymphedema doesn’t resolve entirely, although it may fluctuate. Pitting is more pronounced and fibrosis is present.
• Stage 3 (lymphostatic elephantiasis) is marked by dermal hardening, nonpitting edema, papillomas, hyperkeratosis, and in some cases, extreme girth.
Assessment and diagnosis
Diagnosing lymphedema can be challenging because edema may be associated with other diseases and disorders. For a summary of signs and symptoms, see Clinical findings in lymphedema by clicking the PDF icon above.
Discomfort and skin appearance
Lymphedema rarely causes pain because the skin accommodates gradual, insidious fluid accumulation. However, secondary orthopedic discomfort may result from increased weight of the affected limb due to deconditioning or decreased range of motion.
Because lymphedema usually progresses slowly, gravity and centrifugal forces pull fluids toward distal limb areas, causing an entrenched, stubborn pitting edema. Later, further valvular incompetence contributes to worsening distal edema in the fingers, toes, and dorsal regions of the hand and foot. Prominent lower-extremity structures, such as the malleolus, patella, tibia, anterior tibialis tendon, and Achilles tendon, become progressively less distinct. This creates a columnar limb appearance; the swollen limb has the same girth from distal to proximal aspects, unlike the natural cone shape of a normal limb.
Lymphatic failure doesn’t tax the venous system, so skin color remains normal. Blood supply remains patent, helping to prevent secondary ulcers.
Severity
Lymphedema severity correlates directly with such factors as onset of the condition and extent of cancer therapy, if given (number of nodes resected, number of positive nodes, and use of radiotherapy). Lymphedema may worsen with a greater number of infection episodes, weight gain, injury, diuretics, limb disuse, pneumatic compression therapy (when used for pure lymphedema), and ill-fitting compression garments. The single most important contributor to increasing lymphedema severity is lack of patient education, which can result in improper treatment or none at all.
Opportunistic infections
Lymphedema causes regional immune suppression and leads to an increase in opportunistic infections such as cellulitis. As skin integrity suffers, scaling and dryness allow resident skin pathogens (such as streptococci and staphylococci) to gain access through the defective skin barrier into protein-rich interstitial fluid, creating a medium favorable to bacterial colonization. Lymphocyte migration decreases, and dissected or irradiated nodal sites are slow to detect invaders. Furthermore, stagnant lymph promotes further delays in the immune response. Patients with opportunistic infections may exhibit high fever, local erythema, regional hypersensitivity or acute pain, flulike symptoms, and rapidly advancing “map-like” borders in the skin.
Differential diagnosis
Several methods can aid differential diagnosis. Clinical findings. Lymphedema can be diagnosed from patient history, physical examination, palpation, and inspection. Trauma to lymph nodes (each of which governs a distinct body region) decreases the transport capacity of lymph formed in that region, in turn causing local swelling (lymphedema). Trauma to the axillary or inguinal lymph nodes, which exist on both the left and right of the body and in both the upper and lower regions, predisposes these quadrants to swelling. Therefore, if lymph nodes on only one side are damaged, lymphedema occurs only on that side of the body. Using the universal characteristics cited above as a guide, while ruling out cancer recurrence, acute deep vein thrombosis, or plasma protein abnormalities, yields sufficient data to form a diagnosis. Imaging. Lymphography involves subcutaneous injection of a lymph vessel–
specific dye (Patent Blue V), followed by X-ray. Although it provides high-resolution images of lymphatic structures, this technique is invasive, painful, damaging to lymphatics, and potentially lethal—and therefore is no longer recommended.
Lymphangioscintigraphy (LAS) uses interdigital subcutaneous injection of protein-labeled radioisotopes, followed by
imaging at specific intervals to gather information about uptake and transport time. Images are hazy and false-negatives are common, so well-trained radiotherapists familiar with lymphology and lymphedema should administer and interpret the test. Also, experts don’t agree on standard criteria for LAS administration, so measures may not be similarly conclusive. Limb-measuring instruments and methods. Serial measurement of affected limb circumference using a standard garment tape measure is the most widely accessible approach. Intra-rater reliability is comparable to that of currently used tools; however, these methods can’t be used for early detection, for screening, or when various raters are used to assess the same patient. Circumferences are measured at four points and are considered positive if a distance of 2 cm or more separates the involved from uninvolved extremity in comparison. Water displacement techniques for limb-volume calculation, although accurate, are impractical in most clinical settings and rarely used.
Various devices have been used to obtain measurements. For instance, the Perometer® uses optoelectronic volumetry. By scanning the limb with infrared beams circumferentially, the device accurately records girth at 4-mm intervals along the limb length and transmits these measurements to a computer. The Perometer is used mainly in the research setting. Preoperative and postoperative measurements at intervals can detect lymphedema early.
Impedimed XCA® uses bioelectrical
impedance to calculate ratios of intracellular to extracellular fluid. A weak electrical current is passed through affected and unaffected limbs, allowing comparison of results. Impedance is lower in edematous tissue, supporting an accurate diagnosis.
Next step: Treatment
Once a diagnosis is made, the next step is treatment. Part 2 of this series covers lymphedema treatment.
Selected references
Foeldi M. Foeldi’s Textbook of Lymphology: For Physicians and Lymphedema Therapists. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2012.
Kubik S, Manestar M. Anatomy of the lymph capillaries and precollectors of the skin. In: Bollinger A, Partsch H, Wolfe JHN, eds. The Initial Lymphatics. Stuttgart: Thieme-Verlag; 1985:66-74.
Lee B, Andrade M, Bergan J, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary lymphedema. Consensus document of the International Union of Phlebology (IUP)—2009. Int Angiol. 2010 Oct;29(5):454-70.
Lerner R. Chronic lymphedema. In: Prasad H, Olsen ER, Sumpio BE, Chang JB, eds. Textbook of Angiology. Springer; 2000.
Mayrovitz HN. Assessing lymphedema by tissue indentation force and local tissue water. Lymphology. 2009 June;42(2):88-98
Pecking AP, Alberini JL, Wartski M, et al. Relationship between lymphoscintigraphy and clinical findings in lower limb lymphedema (LO): toward a comprehensive staging. Lymphology. 2008 Mar;41(1):1-10.
Stanton AW, Northfield JW, Holroyd, B, et al. Validation of an optoelectronic volumeter (Perometer). Lymphology. 1997 June;30(2):77-97
Weissleder H, Schuchhardt C. Lymphedema: Diagnosis and Therapy. 4th ed. Viavital Verlag GmbH; 2007.
Steve Norton is cofounder of Lymphedema & Wound Care Education and executive director of the Norton School of Lymphatic Therapy in Matawan, New Jersey.
In the current healthcare environment, wound care practitioners need to capitalize on all available reimbursement avenues for care delivery and wound care supplies and dressings. And when it comes to reimbursement, there’s one constant: The rules change constantly. Whether these changes always benefit the patient is questionable. Nowhere is this more evident than in acute-care settings. Clinicians constantly are challenged to make sure their patient-care decisions comply with current Medicare reimbursement guidelines. (And if you’re not sure about today’s guidelines, be prepared for the guidelines to change tomorrow.) (more…)
