Management of acute surgical wounds in Saudi Arabia: nursing staff knowledge and practice

Clinicians' and Patients' Experiences and Perceptions on the Prevention and Management of Surgical Site Infections: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review

AIM

To explore clinicians' and patients' perceptions of implementing evidence-based practice to improve clinical practice for preventing and managing surgical site infections within hospital acute care settings.

DESIGN

A convergent integrated mixed-methods systematic review using the Joanna Briggs Institute approach.

METHODS

Included studies reported (i) acute care hospital clinicians' and patients' experiences and preferences for preventing and managing surgical site infections and (ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing surgical site infection prevention and management guidelines. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set were used for critical appraisal. Quantitative data was transformed into qualitised data, then thematically synthesised with qualitative data and coded all findings into themes. Clinicians' and patients' views were also compared.

DATA SOURCES

English language peer-reviewed studies published from 2009 to March 2023 were identified from Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Library.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies (16 quantitative, 17 qualitative, 3 mixed-methods and 1 quality improvement) met the inclusion criteria. Five main themes represent key factors believed to influence the implementation of evidence-based surgical site infection prevention and management guidelines: (1) Intentional non-adherence to insufficiently detailed and outdated guidelines, (2) Knowledge deficits on evidence-based SSI care bring about inconsistent clinical practice, (3) Collaborative interdisciplinary and patient-provider relationship to enhance guideline uptake, (4) Infection surveillance to improve patient safety and quality of life and (5) Negative physical and psychological impacts on patients.

CONCLUSION

The five themes reflect a need for updated hospital guidelines as a medium to improve surgical site infection knowledge and ensure consistent and evidence-based clinical practice. This review also highlights the significance of interdisciplinary and patient-provider collaboration and infection surveillance to facilitate guideline uptake. The effectiveness of intervention bundles designed to improve these aspects of care will need to be evaluated in future research.

IMPACT

A future intervention bundle that includes (1) ensuring up-to-date hospital guidelines/policies; (2) fostering collaborative interdisciplinary teamwork culture between physicians, nurses, podiatrists, pharmacists and allied health professionals; (3) encouraging patient or carer involvement in shared decision-making and (4) implementing audit and feedback mechanism on infection surveillance is proposed to improve SSI prevention and management in acute care settings.

REPORTING METHOD

This paper followed the PRISMA 2020 checklist guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This mixed-methods systematic review collates evidence of clinicians' and patients' experiences and preferences for preventing and managing surgical site infections. The inclusion of hospital patients' perspectives supports the development of patient-centred interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol is registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021250885). Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021250885.

Acute care nurses' experience in providing evidence-based care for patients with laparotomy wounds: A scoping review

To systematically search and synthesise available literature on barriers and enablers to evidence-based care for patients with laparotomy wounds reported by acute care nurses. Specifically, we focused on wound assessment, infection control techniques, wound products used, escalation of care, dressing application, documentation and holistic care. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist and explanation documents directed the review. The methodology framework created by Arksey and O'Malley, updated by Levac et al., and the Joanna Briggs Institute were utilised to assist the scoping review process. Data synthesis was guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Six qualitative and mixed methods studies were selected for the review. Most reported barriers and enablers were mapped to knowledge, skills, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources and beliefs about capability domains. The main barriers were limited access to and utilisation of wound assessment tools and clinical practice guidelines for wound management and suboptimal time management skills. Inconsistent management of laparotomy wounds was related to ward culture and nurses' lack of knowledge and skills in surgical wound assessment and aseptic technique during wound encounters. The reported enablers were knowledge of multi-factorial risk factors for surgical wound recovery, valuing education and reflective practice and believing that protocols should be utilised alongside comprehensive wound assessments. Holistic wound care included patient education on the role of mobilisation and nutrition in wound healing. Acute care nurses do not routinely incorporate comprehensive, evidence-based care recommendations for laparotomy wound management. Further research on evidence-based care behaviours in managing laparotomy wounds is required. The results indicate a need for standardising the practice of laparotomy wound management while acknowledging the current challenges faced in the ward environment.

Post-operative nursing activities to prevent wound complications in patients undergoing colorectal surgeries: A scoping review

AIMS

To identify postoperative interventions and quality improvement initiatives used to prevent wound complications in patients undergoing colorectal surgeries, the types of activities nurses undertake in these interventions/initiatives and how these activities align with nurses' scope of practice.

DESIGN

A scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Three health databases were searched, and backward and forward citation searching occurred in April 2022. Research and quality improvement initiatives included focussed on adult patients undergoing colorectal surgery, from 2010 onwards. Data were extracted about study characteristics, nursing activities and outcomes. The 'Dimensions of the scope of nursing practice' framework was used to classify nursing activities and then the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendations framework was used to synthesise the review findings.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were included. These studies often reported negative wound pressure therapy and surgical site infection bundle interventions/initiatives. Nurses' scope of practice was most frequently 'Technical procedure and delegated medical care' meaning nurses frequently acted under doctors' orders, with the most common delegated activity being dressing removal.

CONCLUSION

The full extent of possible interventions nurses could undertake independently in the postoperative period requires further exploration to improve wound outcomes and capitalise on nurses' professional role.

IMPACT STATEMENT

Nurses' role in preventing postoperative wound complications is unclear, which may inhibit their ability to influence postoperative outcomes. In the postoperative period, nurses undertake technical activities, under doctors' orders to prevent wound infections. For practice, nurses need to upkeep and audit their technical skills. New avenues for researchers include exploration of independent activities for postoperative nurses and the outcomes of these activities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

There may be opportunities to broaden nurses' scope of practice to act more autonomously to prevent wound complication.

REPORTING METHOD

Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

A health consumer interpreted the data and prepared the manuscript.