IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v23y2014i21-22p3250-3261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Postsurgery wound assessment and management practices: a chart audit

Author

Listed:
  • Brigid M Gillespie
  • Wendy Chaboyer
  • Evelyn Kang
  • Jayne Hewitt
  • Paul Nieuwenhoven
  • Nicola Morley

Abstract

Aims and Objectives To examine wound assessment and management in patients following surgery and to compare these practices with current evidence‐based guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection across one healthcare services district in Queensland, Australia. Background Despite innovations in surgical techniques, technological advances and environmental improvements in the operating room, and the use of prophylactic antibiotics, surgical site infections remain a major source of morbidity and mortality in patients following surgery. Design A retrospective clinical chart audit Methods A random sample of 200 medical records of patients who had undergone surgery was undertaken over a two‐year period (2010–2012). An audit tool was developed to collect the data on wound assessment and practice. The study was undertaken across one healthcare services district in Australia. Results Of the 200 records that were randomly identified, 152 (76%) met the inclusion criteria. The excluded records were either miscoded or did not involve a surgical incision. Of the 152 records included, 87 (57·2%) procedures were classified as ‘clean’ and 106 (69·7%) were elective. Wound assessments were fully documented in 63/152 (41·4%) of cases, and 59/152 (38·8%) charts had assessments documented on a change of patient condition. Of the 15/152 (9·9%) patients with charted postoperative wound complications, 4/15 (26·6%) developed clinical signs of wound infection, which were diagnosed on days 3 to 5. Conclusions The timing, content and accuracy of wound assessment documentation are variable. Standardising documentation will increase consistency and clarity and contribute to multidisciplinary communication. Relevance to clinical practice These results suggest that postoperative wound care practices are not consistent with evidence‐based guidelines. Consequently, it is important to involve clinicians in identifying possible challenges within the clinical environment that may curtail guideline use.

Suggested Citation

  • Brigid M Gillespie & Wendy Chaboyer & Evelyn Kang & Jayne Hewitt & Paul Nieuwenhoven & Nicola Morley, 2014. "Postsurgery wound assessment and management practices: a chart audit," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(21-22), pages 3250-3261, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:21-22:p:3250-3261
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12574
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12574
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12574?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kai Klinker & Manuel Wiesche & Helmut Krcmar, 2020. "Digital Transformation in Health Care: Augmented Reality for Hands-Free Service Innovation," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 1419-1431, December.
    2. Frances Lin & Brigid M. Gillespie & Wendy Chaboyer & Yu Li & Karen Whitelock & Nicola Morley & Shirley Morrissey & Frances O’Callaghan & Andrea P. Marshall, 2019. "Preventing surgical site infections: Facilitators and barriers to nurses’ adherence to clinical practice guidelines—A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(9-10), pages 1643-1652, May.
    3. Brigid M. Gillespie & Rachel Walker & Frances Lin & Shelley Roberts & Anne Eskes & Jodie Perry & Sean Birgan & Paul Nieuwenhoven & Elizabeth Garrahy & Rosalind Probert & Wendy Chaboyer, 2020. "Wound care practices across two acute care settings: A comparative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5-6), pages 831-839, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:21-22:p:3250-3261. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.