Wound care practices across two acute care settings: A comparative study.
Brigid M Gillespie, Rachel Walker, Frances Lin and 8 others
PMID 31820850WHAT IT FOUND
Hand hygiene after dressing changes was observed in only 7% at Hospital A and 11% at Hospital B during nurses' postoperative wound care.
Key findings
01Hand hygiene was observed before dressing change in 95% of episodes at Hospital A and 91% at Hospital B, but after dressing change in only 7% at Hospital A and 11% at Hospital B.
02The two hospitals differed significantly in all 10 aspects of documented wound care.
03There were no statistically significant differences between hospitals in seven of the nine observed wound dressing practices.
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
Only two hospitals in Queensland were studied, and wards were volunteers, so the practices may not represent other hospitals. Nurses were observed giving usual care, so they may have changed their practice because they knew they were being watched. The study compared observed care and documentation, not patient outcomes such as infection, pain, or healing. Documentation in electronic or paper records may not show whether wound care actually happened, because some care may have been omitted from notes. Different data collectors worked at each hospital, and agreement between trainers and trainees was modest. Observations were done on weekdays, when most surgical activity occurred, so weekend care was not described.
Declared interests
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the low hand hygiene after dressing change as evidence that patients developed infections. The study observed wound care practices and documentation, but it did not measure infection or other patient outcomes.