Do stakeholders in wound care prefer evidence-based wound care products? A survey in the Netherlands

Authors

  • Anne M Eskes,

    1. AM Eskes, RN, MSc, Department of Quality Assurance & Process Innovation, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Amsterdam School of Health Professions, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Marja N Storm-Versloot,

    1. MN Storm-Versloot, RN, MSc, Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Hester Vermeulen,

    1. H Vermeulen, RN, PhD, Department of Quality Assurance & Process Innovation, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Amsterdam School of Health Professions, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Dirk T Ubbink

    Corresponding author
    1. DT Ubbink, MD, PhD, Department of Quality Assurance & Process Innovation, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author

DT Ubbink, MD, PhD, Department of Quality Assurance & Process Innovation, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, PO 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, the Netherlands
E-mail:d.ubbink@amc.nl

Abstract

For several wound products compelling evidence is available on their effectiveness, for example, from systematic reviews. The process of buying, prescribing and applying wound materials involve many stakeholders, who may not be aware of this evidence, although this is essential for uniform and optimum treatment choice. In this survey, we determined the general awareness and use of evidence, based on (Cochrane) systematic reviews, for wound products in open wounds and burns among wound care stakeholders, including doctors, nurses, buyers, pharmacologists and manufacturers. We included 262 stakeholders. Doctors preferred conventional antiseptics (e.g. iodine), while specialised nurses and manufacturers favoured popular products (e.g. silver). Most stakeholders considered silver-containing products as evidence-based effective antiseptics. These were mostly used by specialised nurses (47/57; 82%), although only few of them (9/55; 16%) thought using silver is evidence-based. For burns, silver sulfadiazine and hydrofibre were most popular. The majority of professionals considered using silver sulfadiazine to be evidence-based, which contradicts scientific results. Awareness and use of the Cochrane Library was lower among nurses than among doctors (P < 0·001). Two thirds of the manufacturers were unaware of, or never used, the Cochrane Library. Available compelling evidence in wound care is not equally internalised by stakeholders, which is required to ensure evidence-based decision making.

Ancillary