To explore the perceptions of general practitioners (GPs) regarding their role and their collaboration with district nurses (DNs) in the management of leg ulcers in primary healthcare.

Earlier research regarding the treatment of leg ulcers in a primary care context has focussed primarily on wound healing. Less is known about GPs’ understandings of their role and their collaboration with DNs in the management of leg ulcers. Since the structured care of patients with leg ulcers involving both GP and DN is currently rather uncommon in Swedish primary care, this study sets out to highlight these aspects from the GP’s perspective.

Semi-structured individual interviews with 16 GPs including both private and county council run healthcare centres. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Four themes were identified. The first theme: ‘role as consultant and coordinator’ shows how the GPs perceived their role in wound care. In the second theme: ‘responsibility for diagnosis’ the GPs’ views on responsibility for wound diagnosis is presented. The third theme: ‘desire for continuity’ is based on the GPs’ desire for continuity concerning various aspects. In the fourth theme: ‘collaboration within the organisation’ the importance of the organisation for collaboration between GPs and DNs is presented.

The GP’s often work on a consultation-like basis and feel that they become involved late in the patients’ wound treatment. This can have negative consequences for the medical diagnosis and, thereby, lead to a prolonged healing time for the patient. Shortcomings regarding collaboration are mainly attributed to organisational factors.

To assess and improve the quality of Secondary to Primary Care communication on discharge with a focus on post-surgical wound care.

Hospital discharge summaries are the principle means of relaying accurate information back to primary care healthcare providers regarding a patient’s hospital attendance and any ongoing care that is required. The quality of these summaries can be quiet varied both nationally and local to our Trust. Subsequently the Surgical Directorate were seeing an increased level of additional emergency communication from Primary Care providers especially in relation to post-operative wound care.

A survey was distributed to local Primary Care practitioners to assess satisfaction with the General Surgical Department wound care information located on the discharge summary. Using these results, a wound closure information document was developed and distributed to general practice surgeries, and a patient-held ‘wound care’ card was piloted for two months. The survey was then repeated to determine the success of the intervention.

Post discharge communication was on the whole felt to be of poor quality and lacked a large amount of essential and desirable information. There was a particular absence of relevant information regarding surgical wound closure techniques utilised and their ongoing management. Many Primary Care practitioners acknowledge that their knowledge on this subject can be low. A Trust specific information leaflet combined with a dedicated patient held discharge information card can solve a number of these issues improving Primary and Secondary Care satisfaction and reducing the use of emergency resources and appointments.

When disaster strikes, the number of patients requiring treatment can be overwhelming. In low-income countries, resources to assist the injured in a timely fashion may be limited. As a consequence, necrosis and wound infection in disaster patients is common and frequently leads to adverse health outcomes such as amputations, chronic wounds, and loss of life. In such compromised health care environments, low-tech and cheap wound care options are required that are in ready supply, easy to use, and have multiple therapeutic benefits. Maggot debridement therapy (MDT) is one such wound care option and may prove to be an invaluable tool in the treatment of wounds post-disaster.

This report provides an overview of the wound burden experienced in various types of disaster, followed by a discussion of current treatment approaches, and the role MDT may play in the treatment of complex wounds in challenging health care conditions. Maggot debridement therapy removes necrotic and devitalized tissue, controls wound infection, and stimulates wound healing. These properties suggest that medicinal maggots could assist health care professionals in the debridement of disaster wounds, to control or prevent infection, and to prepare the wound bed for reconstructive surgery. Maggot debridement therapy-assisted wound care would be led by health care workers rather than physicians, which would allow the latter to focus on reconstructive and other surgical interventions. Moreover, MDT could provide a larger window for time-critical interventions, such as fasciotomies to treat compartment syndrome and amputations in case of life-threatening wound infection.

There are social, medical, and logistic hurdles to overcome before MDT can become widely available in disaster medical aid. Thus, research is needed to further demonstrate the utility of MDT in Disaster Medicine. There is also a need for reliable MDT logistics and supply chain networks. Integration with other disaster management activities will also be essential.

In the aftermath of disasters, MDT could play an important role facilitating timely and efficient medical treatment and improving patient outcomes. Existing social, medical, and logistic barriers will need to be overcome for MDT to be mainstreamed in Disaster Medicine.

StadlerF , ShabanRZ , TathamP . Maggot Debridement Therapy in Disaster Medicine. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(1):79–84.

Providing patients with instructions and equipment regarding self-removal of nonabsorbable sutures could represent a new efficiency in emergency department (ED) practice. The primary outcome was to compare the proportion of patients successfully removing their own sutures when provided with suture removal instructions and equipment versus the standard advice and follow-up care. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, number of physician visits, and patient comfort level.

This prospective, controlled, single-blinded, pseudorandomized trial enrolled consecutive ED patients who met the eligibility criteria (age > 19 years, simple lacerations, nonabsorbable sutures, immunocompetent). The study group was provided with wound care instructions, a suture removal kit, and instructions regarding suture self-removal. The control group received wound care instructions alone. Outcomes were assessed by telephone contact at least 14 days after suturing using a standardized questionnaire.

Overall, 183 patients were enrolled (93 in the intervention group; 90 in the control group). Significantly more patients performed suture self-removal in the intervention group (91.5%; 95% CI 85.4–97.5) compared to the control group (62.8%; 95% CI 52.1–73.6) (p < 0.001). Patients visited their physician less often in the intervention group (9.8%; 95% CI 3.3–16.2) compared to the control group (34.6%; 95% CI 24.1–45.2%) (p < 0.001). Complication rates were similar in both groups.

Most patients are willing to remove, and capable of removing, their own sutures. Providing appropriate suture removal instructions and equipment to patients with simple lacerations in the ED appears to be both safe and acceptable.