To Örebro University

BACKGROUND: Wound cleansing is a fundamental component of chronic wound management; yet, high-quality evidence to guide practice is limited. Understanding nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) is essential, but no instrument with published evidence of acceptable measurement properties exists.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a KAP questionnaire on wound cleansing for community nurses and evaluate its measurement properties.

METHODS: A multi-phase study was conducted, including literature/consensus item generation; a two-round international Delphi process; pilot cognitive interviews; and field testing in Canada. Knowledge was assessed for item and construct validity; attitude for internal consistency (Cronbach's α); and all KAP items for stability using test-retest reliability.

RESULTS: 26 experts supported content relevance; feedback led to targeted revisions. Field testing involved 130 nurses (83.1 % homecare; >80 % with ≥5 years of wound care experience). Several knowledge items were too easy (≥.90); none negatively discriminated. Exploratory principal components analysis of attitudes yielded three components (63 % of variance); internal consistency ranged from α = 0.41 to α = 0.76. In the subsample (n = 30), knowledge κ values ranged from slight/fair to substantial; some items showed ceiling effects (uniform responses, κ undefined). Attitude and practice item-level intraclass correlation coefficients varied (.07-.95), with several ≥.75 and others <.60. Known-groups comparison supported higher knowledge among formally educated nurses.

CONCLUSION: Evidence supports content validity and a clarified attitudes structure; internal consistency and stability were acceptable for some elements but below the threshold for others. Future refinement and confirmatory testing are warranted.

Wound cleansing is widely regarded as a foundational component of chronic wound management; however, the empirical evidence supporting commonly recommended cleansing techniques remains limited. Much of the guidance informing current practice is derived from acute wound models, laboratory studies, and expert consensus rather than from comparative studies conducted in chronic wound populations.

The aim of this thesis was to examine the evidence base for wound cleansing practices in chronic wounds and to investigate nurses’ knowledge, attitudes, and practice related to wound cleansing.

The thesis comprises four studies. Study I systematically reviewed evidence comparing irrigation and swabbing techniques in chronic wounds. Study II developed and psychometrically evaluated a questionnaire measuring nurses’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to wound cleansing. Study III applied the instrument in an international cross-sectional survey. Study IV conducted confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the internal structure of the attitudes subscale.

The review identified extremely limited chronic wound-specific evidence for commonly recommended cleansing techniques. The developed instrument demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties. Survey findings showed variation in clinician knowledge and practice, with higher knowledge associated with formal wound care education. Confirmatory analysis supported the multidimensional structure of nurses’ attitudes.

These findings highlight the need for stronger empirical evidence and structured education to support evidence-informed cleansing practices.

Debridement is a core component of chronic wound management. Although various debridement methods exist, each carries a unique patient risk level. This article discusses the different normal tissue components that are critical to safe debridement practice, various methods of wound debridement for nurses, and the importance of an interprofessional team and consulting a wound specialist.

Debridement, a mainstay of nursing clinical practice, refers to the removal of dead or unhealthy tissue from a wound to facilitate healing. Debridement is one component of the concept of wound bed preparation that has long guided the approach to wound management. The ability of a wound to heal must be determined prior to the initiation of any method of debridement. In areas where high-quality, comparative studies on the relative benefits of different debridement modalities are lacking, nurses should adopt an evidence-informed approach to care. To do this, nurses must understand the importance of following a comprehensive, holistic approach when treating chronic wounds. Nurses should have knowledge of inflammation and infection control and of the fundamentals of moisture management, recognize the need for debridement in healable wounds, and be familiar with different debridement options. This article provides nurses with a wound management framework, an overview of wound debridement options based on the potential for wound healing, and scope of practice considerations for developing a plan of care. A composite case is presented to illustrate the critical considerations in wound care.

Debridement is a critical component in the management of both acute and chronic wounds. Six reviewed methods of debridement exist, and specific techniques are more appropriate to match patient needs with available clinical resources. Accurate differentiation between healable, maintenance, and nonhealable wounds is paramount when determining whether a wound would benefit from debridement.

Clinical assessment includes review of the patient's underlying medical conditions/previous surgeries along with the history and progression of the wound. Awareness of the physiologic wound bed preparation components that contribute to the current wound status will direct treatment of the abnormal components. Optimal wound status includes complete healing or reduced abnormal wound-related symptoms or signs.

Debridement competency requires an awareness of the six types of debridement, their clinical utility, and appropriate patient selection. Providers need to assess patients' wounds, triage them, and refer them as necessary to an interprofessional setting. For stalled but healable wounds, specialized testing may be necessary when managing patients who would benefit from more invasive or advanced forms of wound care. This article informs providers on the training and experience required for specific debridement techniques depending on the wound etiology.

PURPOSE: To systematically summarize and review the existing literature to determine the difference between wound cleansing techniques, irrigation and swabbing, in relation to bleeding, pain, infection, necrotic tissue and exudate in non-infected chronic wounds including pressure injuries, venous and arterial leg ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers.

METHODS: A systematic search of the electronic databases Ovid Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and EMBASE was performed to identify all relevant literature in English. The search also included systematic reviews as a method to obtain additional potential citations by manually searching the reference lists. Included studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

RESULTS: One study met eligibility criteria. Two hundred fifty six patients with wounds healing via secondary intention (n = 256) were included. Wound cleansing via swabbing technique was associated with increased perception of pain and increased rates of infection when compared to the irrigation group (93.4% versus 84.2% p = 0.02 and 5.2% versus 3.3% p = 0.44, respectively). Only a small proportion of this sample met the inclusion criteria, so the results are not considered externally valid.

CONCLUSION: Wound cleansing remains a controversial topic. Despite calls for further research, there continues to remain a large gap in evidence to guide practice. Irrigation continues to replace swabbing in the management of chronic wounds, although evidence of improved outcomes is virtually nonexistent. Although the one study identified was of sound methodological quality, chronic wounds accounted for only a small percentage of the sample. Therefore, results are not generalizable to those with chronic wounds. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of basic wound cleansing techniques before considering more costly products.