Fleur E. Brölmann

Evidence-based decisions for local and systemic wound care

Decisions on local and systemic wound treatment vary among surgeons and are frequently based on expert opinion. The aim of this meta‐review was to compile best available evidence from systematic reviews in order to formulate conclusions to support evidence‐based decisions in clinical practice.

Randomized clinical trial of donor-site wound dressings after split-skin grafting

The aim was to study which dressing material was best for healing donor‐site wounds (DSWs) after split‐skin grafting as there is wide variation in existing methods, ranging from classical gauze dressings to modern silicone dressings.

Fundamentals of randomized clinical trials in wound care: Design and conduct

The care for chronic and acute wounds is a substantial problem around the world. This has led to a plethora of products to accelerate healing. Unfortunately, the quality of studies evaluating the efficacy of such wound care products is frequently low. Randomized clinical trials are universally acknowledged as the study design of choice for comparing treatment effects, as they eliminate several sources of bias. We propose a framework for the design and conduct of future randomized clinical trials that will offer strong scientific evidence for the effectiveness of wound care interventions. While randomization is a necessary feature of a robust comparative study, it is not sufficient to ensure a study at low risk of bias. Randomized clinical trials should also ensure adequate allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors, apply intention‐to‐treat analysis, and use patient‐oriented outcomes. This article proposes strategies for improving the evidence base for wound care decision making.

Fundamentals of randomized clinical trials in wound care: Reporting standards

In wound care research, available high‐level evidence according to the evidence pyramid is rare, and is threatened by a poor study design and reporting. Without comprehensive and transparent reporting, readers will not be able to assess the strengths and limitations of the research performed. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are universally acknowledged as the study design of choice for comparing treatment effects. To give high‐level evidence the appreciation it deserves in wound care, we propose a step‐by‐step reporting standard for comprehensive and transparent reporting of RCTs in wound care. Critical reporting issues (e.g., wound care terminology, blinding, predefined outcome measures, and a priori sample size calculation) and wound‐specific barriers (e.g., large diversity of etiologies and comorbidities of patients with wounds) that may prevent uniform implementation of reporting standards in wound care research are addressed in this article. The proposed reporting standards can be used as guidance for authors who write their RCT, as well as for peer reviewers of journals. Endorsement and application of these reporting standards may help achieve a higher standard of evidence and allow meta‐analysis of reported wound care data. The ultimate goal is to help wound care professionals make better decisions for their patients in clinical practice.

Which reasons do doctors, nurses, and patients have for hospital discharge? A mixed-methods study.

Background The decision to discharge a patient from a hospital is a complex process governed by many medical and non-medical factors, while the actual reasons for discharge frequently remain ill-defined. Aim To define relevant discharge criteria as perceived by doctors, nurses and patients for the development of a standard hospital discharge policy, we collected actual reasons and most pivotal medical and organisational criteria for discharge among all stakeholders. Setting A tertiary referral university teaching hospital. Methods We conducted a mixed methods analysis, using patient questionnaires, interviews and a focus group with caregivers, and observations during the daily rounds of doctors, nurses and patients during their hospital stay. Fourteen wards of the Surgery, Paediatrics and Neurology departments contributed. Results We observed 426 patients during their hospital stay. Forty doctors and nurses were interviewed, and 7 senior nurses attended a focus group. The most commonly used discharge criteria were clinical factors, organisational discharge issues and patient-related factors. A total of 269 patients returned their questionnaires. About one third of the adult patients and nearly half of the children (or their parents) felt their personal situation and assistance needed at home was insufficiently taken into account before discharge. Patients were least satisfied with the information given about what they were allowed to do or should avoid after discharge and their involvement in the planning of their discharge. Thus, besides obvious medical reasons for discharge, several non-medical reasons were signalled by all stakeholders as important issues to be improved. Conclusions A set of discharge criteria could be defined that is useful for a more uniform hospital discharge policy that may help reduce unnecessary length of stay and improve patient satisfaction.

Are digital photographs reliable to assess donor site scars? An inter-method analysis and validity testing

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.