Abstract: Innovative Development of Unified Wound Care Guidelines (2016 WOCN Society & CAET Joint Conference)

Sue Girolami, RN, BSN, CWON, Therapy Support, Inc., Therapy Support, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, Lisa Corbett, APRN, BC, CWOCN, Wound Ostomy Continence Program, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, Kara Couch, MS, CRNP, CWS, Wound Healing and Limb Preservation Center, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC, Karen Bruton, RN BScN MCISc-WH CETN(C), Wound Clinic, Bayshore HealthCare, Coburg, ON, Canada, Vickie Driver, DPM MS FACFAS, Orthopedic Surgery, Brown University, Boston/Charlestown, MA, Tay Ai Choo, CWS, Plastic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore, Paul Liu, MD, FACS, Department of Plastic Surgery, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, Lisa Gould, MD, PhD, FACS, Wound Recovery and Hyperbaric Medicine Center, Kent Hospital, Warwick, RI, Paulo Da Rosa, BScN, RN, MClScWH, CETN(C), London Health Sciences Center, London, ON, Canada, Jeremy Tamir, MD, FAPWCA, Lee Wound Care and Hyperbaric Medicine Center, Lee Memorial Health System, Fort Myers, FL and Laura Bolton, Ph.D., Surgery, Rutgers University Medical School, Metuchen, NJ

Using evidence-based guidelines to inform wound management decisions improves outcomes (1, 2). Guideline differences in definitions and recommendations can confuse wound care professionals reducing consistency of care and outcomes. Purpose: Unify venous ulcer (VU) and pressure ulcer (PU) guidelines to improve the consistency of VU and PU management in meeting professional, patient and wound needs across specialties and settings. Methods: Using standardized processes to develop and update “guidelines of VU and PU guidelines” (3) the Association for the Advancement of Wound Care Guideline Task Force (AAWCGTF) collaborated with the Wound Healing Society, Canadian Association for Enterostomal Therapy and six other organizations to form the International Consolidated Guideline Task Force (ICGTF) updating the 2015 ICGTF VU and PU Guidelines, based on all recommendations from all major relevant published guidelines. Independent multidisciplinary respondents completed an online survey formally rating each recommendation’s clinical relevance (1-4 scale) and strength based on benefit-to-harm ratings (0-2 scale). Each recommendation was “clinically relevant” if its content validity index (CVI) was at least 0.75, i.e. 75% of participants rated it clinically relevant. It was “strong” if its strength of recommendation average rating exceeded 1.50. Systematic literature reviews identified up to 5 best available references supporting each recommendation based on published (3) standardized evidence ratings (A, B or C). Results: Both guidelines were designed to meet Institute of Medicine and AHRQ standards, in accordance with GRADE, AGREE and BRIDGE-WIZ principles for developing high quality, evidence-based guidelines. All recommendations included in each final guideline are clinically relevant (CVI > 0.75) and/or supported by the highest level of available evidence. Conclusion: The resulting unified, quality guidelines have the potential to improve the consistency of VU and PU care and outcomes, serving patients and interdisciplinary wound care professionals across all settings.

PI16-054 Innovative Development of Unified Wound Care Guidelines