INFECTION PREVENTION & WOUNDCARE
anything so tolerated the treatment excellently
• The results were visible in the first week
• The nurses were shocked that it actually did work
• Liked that it can be used on other chronic wounds not only VLUs
• Accel Heal was small, not cum- bersome for the patient and only required pressing one but- ton once to activate the 48-hour treatment programme.
Results
Twenty-eight patients in 12 clini- cal centres were recruited to the PTT campaign. Primarily VLU were treated with 19 VLU, two diabetic foot ulcers, six abdominal wounds/ complicated ulcer and one pressure ulcer. All the patients are in various stages of post treatment manage- ment with the results to date very encouraging and following a similar pattern to the clinical trial.
Conclusion
Accel-Heal is a new treatment pri- marily designed to promote healing
in recalcitrant venous leg ulcers. There seem to be two district paths to follow when introducing a new concept, treatment or device to the healthcare market. Firstly, the regulatory channel which may in- volve the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency/ISO or similar, collating and disseminating peer-reviewed published scientific and clinical evidence and secondly to introduce the new concept to the end clinical user.
The PTT campaign was instigated to introduce Accel-Heal to the tis- sue viability community to allow them to experience the Accel-Heal treatment for themselves to assist in them making a more informed choice for their patients.
References 1. Chapman-Jones D, Young S, & Tadej M (2010) Assessment of wound healing following electrical stimulation with Accel-Heal. Wounds UK vol. 20 Issue 3 pages 67 - 71 2. Young S, Hampton S & Tadej M (2011) Study to evaluate the effect of low-intensity current on levels of oedema in chronic non-healing wounds. Journal of Wound Care vol. 20 No. 8 pages 368 - 373
FOR MORE INFORMATION
T: 01959 569433 E:
david@synapsemicrocurrent.com
Ian Poole of Nursing Hygiene tells NHE about a breakthrough care chair that’s quickly adaptable to specific requirements.
management is well-established throughout the healthcare sector. Yet for too long, a bespoke care chair has been an expensive busi- ness with unreasonably long lead times.
T
The Eneva chair from Medi-Rehab sweeps all these limitations to one side. Built entirely from a range of specialist-care options, it can be tailored to a specific user quickly and cost-effectively.
Reducing the waiting time for a bespoke care chair to just three weeks, the Eneva makes it practi- cally possible to provide person- alized care quickly and economi- cally. In addition to this, its adapt- ability means that it can easily be re-tailored to changing require-
he importance of effective postural control and pressure
ments or to new users.
Compact enough to fit through standard-width doorways, the En- eva is highly practical for all care environments. A free assessment and demonstration can be ar- ranged with Medi-Rehab.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
T: 0845 217 0203 E:
sales@medirehab.co.uk W:
www.medirehab.co.uk
Experts are calling for a zero tolerance approach to preventable Surgical Site Infections, as Carefusion explains.
group of key experts are urg- ing UK hospitals to take Sur- gical Site Infections (SSIs) more seriously and to take action to mini- mise this costly and largely prevent- able problem.
A
A new report from the group, called ‘Under the Knife’, highlights the sizeable physical and financial bur- den of SSIs on both the patient and the healthcare system and calls for every hospital to review its current practice in relation to the preven- tion of SSIs.
SSIs affect a large number of pa- tients – around 5% of all patients undergoing a surgical procedure – and cost the NHS in the region of £700m per year. The report shows that threshold analyses are largely supportive of greater investment in prevention to avoid the costs of an SSI to the NHS and the unnecessary suffering to the patient.
Mr Shyam Kolvekar, a cardiotho- racic surgeon and co-author of the report, commented: “SSIs are dan- gerous healthcare-associated infec- tions that affect a large number of patients, yet little is known about the true rates of infection.
“Surveillance is not mandatory and the problem has been relatively neglected compared to attempts to tackle the prevention and control of MRSA and Clostridium Difficile. Every hospital should be made ac- countable for their current SSI rates and how they plan to lower them, something that is relatively low in cost to do and can be done using simple evidence-based approaches.”
Commenting on the financial im- plications of SSIs, co-author of the report, Paul Trueman, Professor of Health Economics at the University of Brunel, said: “Investment in bet- ter infection control has the poten-
tial to lead to significant savings in the short term whilst also improving the patient experience, especially at a time when the QIPP agenda is pro- moting a ‘do more for less’ agenda and finance managers are looking for disinvestment opportunities.
“It is clear to see that a ‘spend to save’ mentality has to be adopted for the prevention of SSIs.”
Recent announcements from the Department of Health have brought SSIs to the fore and mean that hos- pitals will bear the consequences of failings in patient care. At the end of 2010, the health secretary announced that the costs of re-ad- missions to hospital within 30 days of discharge would be the respon- sibility of the hospital rather than primary care payers. The intention is that hospitals will be incentivised to improve the discharge status of patients,
particularly those hav-
ing undergone surgery, and ensure that unnecessary re-admissions are avoided.
This could affect up to £1.5bn of NHS funding, based on 2009 fig- ures of a re-admission rate of 6.7%, resulting in the cost of unneces- sary readmissions falling back onto hospital trusts. This is particularly important in the area of SSIs, as many are identified in the primary care setting after patients have been discharged. A recent pilot looking at the infection rates of SSIs in prima- ry care showed that infection rates were more than twice those pub- lished by the national surveillance programme, with almost half the SSIs in both colo-rectal patients and breast surgery patients identified in the community.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
The report is available by emailing
info@undertheknifereport.co.uk
national health executive Sep/Oct 11 | 59
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104