Search

Background: skin tears are acute wounds that are frequently misdiagnosed and under-reported. A standardized and globally adopted skin tear classification system with supporting evidence for diagnostic validity and reliability is required to allow assessment and reporting in a consistent way. Objectives To measure the validity and reliability of the International Skin Tear Advisory Panel (ISTAP) Classification System internationally. Methods: a multicountry study was set up to validate the content of the ISTAP Classification System through expert consultation in a two-round Delphi procedure involving 17 experts from 11 countries. An online survey including 24 skin tear photographs was conducted in a convenience sample of 1601 healthcare professionals from 44 countries to measure diagnostic accuracy, agreement, inter-rater reliability and intrarater reliability of the instrument. Results: a definition for the concept of a 'skin flap' in the area of skin tears was developed and added to the initial ISTAP Classification System consisting of three skin tear types. The overall agreement with the reference standard was 0 center dot 79 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0 center dot 79-0 center dot 80] and sensitivity ranged from 0 center dot 74 (95% CI 0 center dot 73-0 center dot 75) to 0 center dot 88 (95% CI 0 center dot 87-0 center dot 88). The inter-rater reliability was 0 center dot 57 (95% CI 0 center dot 57-0 center dot 57). The Cohen's Kappa measuring intrarater reliability was 0 center dot 74 (95% CI 0 center dot 73-0 center dot 75). Conclusions: the ISTAP Classification System is supported by evidence for validity and reliability. The ISTAP Classification System should be used for systematic assessment and reporting of skin tears in clinical practice and research globally. What's already known about this topic? Skin tears are common acute wounds that are misdiagnosed and under-reported too often. A skin tear classification system is needed to standardize documentation and description for clinical practice, audit and research. What does this study add? The International Skin Tear Advisory Panel Classification System was psychometrically tested in 1601 healthcare professionals from 44 countries. Diagnostic accuracy was high when differentiating between type 1, 2 and 3 skin tears using a set of validated photographs., International Skin Tear Advisory Panel (ISTAP)

Aim: To report the development of a core set of outcome domains for clinical research involving adults with incontinence-associated dermatitis or at risk, independently from any geographical location or skin colour. Background: The management of incontinence-associated dermatitis is important in caring for incontinent patients. The lack of comparability of clinical trial outcomes is a major challenge in the field of evidence-based incontinence-associated dermatitis prevention and treatment. Core outcome sets may therefore be helpful to improve the value of clinical incontinence-associated dermatitis research. Design: Systematic literature review, patient interviews and consensus study using Delphi procedure. Methods: A list of outcome domains was generated through a systematic literature review (no date restrictionsApril 2016), consultation of an international steering committee and three patient interviews. The project team reviewed and refined the outcome domains prior to starting a three-round Delphi procedure conducted between April-September 2017. The panellists, including healthcare providers, researchers and industry were invited to rate the importance of the outcome domains. Results: We extracted 1,852 outcomes from 244 articles. Experts proposed 56 and patients 32 outcome domains. After refinement, 57 panellists from 17 countries rated a list of 58 outcome domains. The final list of outcome domains includes erythema, erosion, maceration, IAD-related pain and patient satisfaction. Conclusion: Erythema, erosion, maceration, incontinence-associated dermatitis -related pain and patient satisfaction are the most important outcome domains to be measured in incontinence-associated dermatitis trials. Based on this international consensus on what to measure, the question of how to measure these domains now requires consideration. Registration: This project has been registered in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET Initiative) database and is part of the Cochrane Skin GroupCore Outcomes Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN).

Background Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is a specific type of irritant contact dermatitis with different levels of severity. An internationally accepted instrument to assess the severity of IAD in adults with established diagnostic accuracy, agreement, and reliability is needed to support clinical practice and research.Objectives To design and psychometrically evaluate the Ghent Global IAD Categorisation Tool (GLOBIAD).Methods The design was based on expert consultation using a three-round Delphi procedure with 34 experts from 13 countries. The instrument was tested using IAD photographs reflecting different severity levels in a sample of 823 health professionals in 30 countries. Measures for diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity), agreement, inter-rater reliability (multi-rater Fleiss kappa), and intra-rater reliability (Cohen’s Kappa) were assessed.Results The GLOBIAD consists of two categories according to the presence of persistent redness (Cat.1) and skin loss (Cat.2), both subdivided based on the presence of clinical signs of infection. The agreement for differentiating between Cat.1 and Cat.2 was 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-0.87], with a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 84%. The overall agreement was 0.55 (95%CI 0.55-0.56). The Fleiss Kappa for differentiating between Cat.1 and Cat.2 was 0.65 (95%CI 0.65-0.65). The overall Fleiss Kappa was 0.41 (95%CI 0.41-0.41). The Cohen’s Kappa for differentiating between Cat.1 and Cat.2 was 0.76 (95%CI 0.75-0.77). The overall Cohen’s Kappa was 0.61 (95%CI 0.59-0.62).Conclusions The development of the GLOBIAD is a major step forward towards a better systematic assessment of IAD in clinical practice and research worldwide. Further validation is however needed.

Background: Skin injuries remain common in neonates admitted to neonatal intensive care units. While predicting neonates at risk of skin injury may assist in reducing the incidence of injury, currently there is limited evidence on which tool may be superior. Methods: A prospective study was completed during November-December 2016 to evaluate the predictive value of the Skin Risk Assessment and Management Tool (SRAMT). Comparisons were made between SRAMT and Neonatal/Infant Braden-Q Scale (BQS) as well as staff’s capacity to predict a neonate’s risk of skin injury. Data collected included gestation, weight, day of assessment, injury types, causation, medical devices in situ and risk scores. Results: In total, 248 assessments were completed with 38% (93) recorded skin injuries. Median (interquartile range) gestation and weight at assessment were 36.7 (26.86-56.86) weeks and 2.44 (0.99-4.06) kg, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed the SRAMT had AUC ( SE) of 0.94 (0.02) compared with 0.82 (0.03) for BQS (0.011, P Conclusion: In this study, the SRAMT’s capacity to predict neonates at risk of injury was higher than the Neonatal BQS and staff. Predicting injuries remains complex and often multifactorial.