![[ Visit WOCN Website ]](images/header_bg.jpg)
Abstract: Prevention of skin breakdown and protection of fragile tissue are common challenges for clinicians when dealing with various types of wounds and ulcers. In the United States, reports show, that 1.5 million skin tears occur each year in institutionalized adults1. This series of case studies outlines both decreased skin tear occurrence and cost savings through use of a novel dressing system.
Method: A group of patients with history of recurrent skin tears, were chosen and agreed to participate in a trial to determine the effectiveness of skin tear prevention with this novel dressing system. We sought two explanations: did the trial dressing system prevent skin tears in trial patients, and, was the dressing system a cost effective solution for skin tear prevention?
20 patients were enlisted in the trial, all of which had suffered at least one skin tear in the previous 6 months. Half of the patients utilized their previous prevention device; the other half received the novel prevention dressing. For control, the participants were switched to the alternate device at the mid-way point of the trial at 3 weeks. Both groups donned the protection devices at all times, except for hygiene. Total length of trial was 6 weeks.
Outcomes: The control group, in both 3 week trials sustained 38% more skin tears than the trial group. No significant variables were noted between the groups which would have accounted for the higher rate of skin tears of the control group in each 3 week period. The cost savings of the novel dressing over conventional skin tear prevention devices is 79.2%. Factor in the treatment costs (including nursing time) for each skin tear, the savings increases to 87.1%.
Method: A group of patients with history of recurrent skin tears, were chosen and agreed to participate in a trial to determine the effectiveness of skin tear prevention with this novel dressing system. We sought two explanations: did the trial dressing system prevent skin tears in trial patients, and, was the dressing system a cost effective solution for skin tear prevention?
20 patients were enlisted in the trial, all of which had suffered at least one skin tear in the previous 6 months. Half of the patients utilized their previous prevention device; the other half received the novel prevention dressing. For control, the participants were switched to the alternate device at the mid-way point of the trial at 3 weeks. Both groups donned the protection devices at all times, except for hygiene. Total length of trial was 6 weeks.
Outcomes: The control group, in both 3 week trials sustained 38% more skin tears than the trial group. No significant variables were noted between the groups which would have accounted for the higher rate of skin tears of the control group in each 3 week period. The cost savings of the novel dressing over conventional skin tear prevention devices is 79.2%. Factor in the treatment costs (including nursing time) for each skin tear, the savings increases to 87.1%.