Wound care
Calls to make wound care a national priority
Wound care is one of the most significant, yet under-recognised challenges facing the UK’s health system. Estimated to cost the NHS upwards of £8.3 billion annually1 for around 50% of all community nurse activity,2
and accounting the burden is immense. Yet wound care
rarely receives the attention afforded to other high-cost clinical areas like cancer, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease. It is time to change that, says the ABHI Wound Care Group.
Wound care is not only about dressings. It is a nurse-led, community-delivered, system-wide challenge that affects millions and is often a consequence of other long-term conditions. By improving wound care – particularly in areas such as lower limb wounds, pressure ulcers, and surgical wounds – the health system can release significant resource, improve patient experience, and address pressing issues of inequality. That is the mission of the ABHI Wound Care Group.
Championing systemic change The ABHI Wound Care Group brings together multiple wound care manufacturers to represent the sector with one voice. The group works to raise the profile of tissue viability as a critical service and to demonstrate the vital role that technology and industry play in delivering better outcomes, enhancing patient experience, and achieving system efficiency. Crucially, the group’s objectives flex in
response to the policy environment. Current priorities include engaging with the Department of Health and Social Care’s (DHSC) Part IX review, promoting value-based procurement, ensuring access to innovation, and advocating for national recognition of wound care as a priority issue. While tissue viability nurses are key to wound
care delivery, the challenge extends across the healthcare spectrum. From podiatrists managing diabetic foot ulcers to general practitioners and surgical teams, a wide range of clinicians play a crucial role in wound healing and patient outcomes. The ABHI Wound Care Group champions a holistic view of wound care, recognising the diverse expertise essential for effective management. One of the most significant structural
challenges in wound care, however, is the lack of clear ownership. As wounds are not confined to one disease area, they often fall between the cracks of clinical accountability. Without a single mandated pathway or national oversight,
there is often no one place for the ‘buck to stop,’ impeding the kind of systemic change that is both possible and, in many ways, a ‘no brainer’. Importantly, wounds are not a disease themselves, but a symptom of underlying conditions, which further complicates efforts to assign responsibility.
Aligning with the DHSC’s Part IX Review The DHSC’s ongoing review of the Drug Tariff Part IX is perhaps the most significant policy development affecting wound care in years. This review includes fundamental changes to the classifications of products and introduces new quality assessment frameworks. With added emphasis on elements like social value, the review has major implications for the market, patient access, and clinician choice. The ABHI Wound Care Group is actively engaging with the consultation process, ensuring that the implementation phase
minimises disruption for manufacturers and preserves access to high-quality, evidence-based technologies. The group is also aligned with ABHI’s Value & Access work to shape the methodology for NICE’s Late-Stage Assessments. These assessments will be critical to ensuring that wound care innovations are evaluated in a fair and clinically relevant manner. This includes ensuring that the needs and expertise of all clinicians involved in wound care, such as tissue viability nurses, podiatrists, and community nurses, are considered to facilitate optimal patient pathways, particularly for complex and growing wound types like diabetic foot ulcers.
Value-based procurement: moving beyond price A major challenge in wound care, and indeed HealthTech procurement more broadly, is the tendency for purchasing decisions to focus on unit price, rather than overall value. This commoditisation fails to consider the broader
September 2025 I
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 57
Natee Meepian -
stock.adobe.com
t
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
