Disaster-Related Wound Care: A Scoping Review.
Qin Shu, Xiang Zhang, Yitong Yuan and 5 others
PMID 39570869WHAT IT FOUND
Most disaster wound care research is retrospective and lacks standardised protocols.
Nurses often manage complex wounds during recovery, but few emergency teams include certified wound specialists. Timely debridement and infection control are critical, yet training gaps persist across international relief teams.
Key findings
01The majority of included studies were retrospective reports based on experience with research designs lacking rigour.
02Nurses frequently deal with leftover and difficult wounds during the post-disaster recovery period rather than initial rescue.
03Current disaster nursing competencies do not describe specific wound care capabilities.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The majority of included studies were retrospective, which limits the strength of the evidence. The review excluded grey literature, conference abstracts and government documents, potentially missing important operational details. The search was limited to English and Chinese publications, introducing a language bias. Disaster contexts are chaotic, and responders often lack time for rigorous data collection, leading to publication bias and incomplete reporting.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the reported infection rates and wound characteristics as evidence that specific interventions are effective. The review found that most studies are retrospective and lack rigorous design, so these figures describe what happened in past disasters rather than proving that particular treatments work. There are currently no evidence-based guidelines for disaster wound care.