Too many wound care research studies are poorly designed, badly executed, and missing crucial data. The objective of this study is to create a series of principles for all stakeholders involved in clinical or comparative effectiveness research in wound healing. The Delphi approach was used to reach consensus, using a web-based survey for survey participants and face-to-face conferences for expert panel members. Expert panel (11 members) and 115 wound care researchers (respondents) drawn from 15 different organizations. Principles were rated for validity using 5-point Likert scales and comments. A 66% response rate was achieved in the first Delphi round from the 173 invited survey participants. The response rate for the second Delphi round was 46%. The most common wound care researcher profile was age 46-55 years, a wound care clinic setting, and >10 years' wound care research and clinical experience. Of the initial 17 principles created by the panel, only four principles were not endorsed in Delphi round 1 with another four not requiring revision. Of the 14 principles assessed by respondents in the second Delphi round, only one principle was not endorsed and it was revised; four other principles also needed revision based on the use of specific words or contextual use. Of the 19 final principles, three included detailed numbered lists. With the wide variation in design, conduct, and reporting of wound care research studies, it is hoped that these principles will improve the standard and practice of care in this field.

BACKGROUND Peristomal skin alterations under ostomy barrier wafers are a commonly reported problem. While a number of interventions to manage this issue have been reported, the use of a topically applied cyanoacrylate has received little attention. This case series describes the use of a topical cyanoacrylate for the management of peristomal skin alterations in persons living with an ostomy. CASE PRESENTATIONS Using a convenience sample, the topical cyanoacrylate dressing was applied to 11 patients with peristomal skin disruption under ostomy wafers in acute care and outpatient settings. The causes of barrier function interruption were also addressed to enhance outcomes. Patients were assessed for wound discomfort using a Likert Scale, time to healing, and number of appliance changes. Patient satisfaction was also examined. CONCLUSION Average reported discomfort levels were 9.5 out of 10 at the initial peristomal irritation assessment visit decreased to 3.5 at the first wafer change and were absent by the second wafer change. Wafers had increasing wear time between changes in both settings with acute care patients responding faster. Epidermal resurfacing occurred within 10.2 days in outpatients and within 7 days in acute care patients. Because of the skin sealant action of this dressing, immediate adherence of the wafer was reported at all pouch changes.

Information about pressure ulcer prevalence, prevention, and optimal management strategies in the long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) setting is sparse. Although care processes in other patient care settings have been reported to affect pressure ulcer prevalence rates, the effect of such programs in the LTACH is unknown. To reduce perceived above-average pressure ulcer prevalence rates and improve care processes, a 108-bed LTACH used a failure mode and effects analysis to identify and address high-priority areas for improvement. Areas in need of improvement included a lack of 1) wound care professionals, 2) methods to consistently document prevention and wound data, and 3) an interdisciplinary wound care team approach, as well as a faulty electronic medical record. While prevalence data were collected, policies and procedures based on several published guidelines were developed and incorporated into the pressure ulcer plan of care by the newly established wound care team. Improved assessment and documentation methods, enhanced staff education, revised electronic records, wound care product reviews, and a facility-wide commitment to improved care resulted in a reduction of facility-acquired pressure ulcer prevalence from 41% at baseline to an average of 4.2% during the following 12 months as well as fewer missing electronic record data (<1% of charts had missing data). These study results suggest that staff education, better documentation, and a dedicated wound care team improves care practices and reduces pressure ulcer prevalence in the LTACH. Studies to increase knowledge about the LTACH patient population and their unique needs and risk profiles are needed.

BACKGROUND The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has enacted 2 policies that have focused considerable attention on the optimal use of indwelling catheters in the acute and long-term care settings and the prevention of complications including catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI). OBJECTIVES This is the second of a 2-part Evidence-Based Report Card reviewing current evidence pertaining to nursing actions for prevention of CAUTI in patients with short- and long-term indwelling catheters. Part 2 reviews multiple interventions for CAUTI prevention including staff education, monitoring of catheter use and CAUTI incidence, insertion technique, urethral meatal care, securement, use of a closed drainage system, bladder irrigation, frequency of catheter change, and antiseptic solutions in the drainage bag. SEARCH STRATEGY Nursing actions for prevention of CAUTI were identified based on search of electronic databases and Web-based search engines for national or international clinical practice guidelines focusing on this topic. Evidence related to the above nursing interventions was identified by searching electronic databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, the ancestry of articles identified in these searches and Google scholar. RESULTS Limited evidence suggests that the following interventions reduce the incidence of CAUTI in patients managed by short-term indwelling catheterization:(1) staff education about catheter management, combined with regular monitoring of CAUTI incidence,(2) a facility-wide program to ensure catheterization only when indicated and prompt removal of indwelling catheters,(3) daily cleansing of the urethral meatus using soap and water or perineal cleanser, and (4) maintenance of a closed urinary drainage system. Mixed evidence suggests that use of a preconnected system reduces inadvertent interruption of a closed urinary drainage system and may prevent CAUTI. Limited evidence suggests that routine catheter changes every 4 to 6 weeks reduce CAUTI incidence in patients managed by long-term catheterization. Existed evidence suggests that the following interventions are not effective for reducing CAUTI incidence:(1) use of sterile technique for catheter insertion,(2) use of antiseptic solutions or ointments during routine meatal care,(3) use of a 2-chambered urinary drainage bag,(4) use of antiseptic filters incorporated into a urinary drainage bag,(5) bladder or catheter irrigation,(6) frequent changes of the urinary drainage bag, and (7) placement of an antiseptic solution in the urinary drainage bag. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Evidence from parts 1 and 2 of this Evidence-Based Report Card provides a sound basis for designing an evidence-based program to prevent CAUTI. Essential elements of a CAUTI prevention program include staff education, ongoing monitoring of CAUTI incidence, monitoring catheter insertion and ensuring prompt removal, and careful attention to techniques for catheterization and catheter care.

BACKGROUND The urinary system is the most common site for all hospital-acquired infections, accounting for approximately 40% of all nosocomial infections. The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has enacted 2 policies that have focused considerable attention on the optimal use of indwelling catheters in the acute and long-term care settings and the prevention of complications including catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI). OBJECTIVES This is the first of a 2-part Evidence-Based Report Card reviewing current evidence pertaining to nursing actions for prevention of CAUTIs in patients with short- and long-term indwelling catheters. Part 1 reviews evidence for materials for catheter construction, including incorporation of antimicrobial substances into the catheter, and selection of catheter size. SEARCH STRATEGY Nursing actions for prevention of CAUTIs were identified based on search of electronic databases and Web-based search engines for national or international clinical practice guidelines focusing on this topic. Evidence related to 2 common nursing interventions, selection of the material of construction and selection of catheter size, was identified by searching electronic databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and the ancestry of articles identified in these searches. RESULTS We found robust evidence supporting insertion of a silver alloy-coated catheter to reduce the risk of CAUTIs for up to 2 weeks in adult patients managed by short-term indwelling catheterization. We also found evidence supporting the insertion of an antibiotic-impregnated catheter for reduction of CAUTI risk for up to 7 days. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether regular use of an antimicrobial catheter reduces the risk of CAUTIs in adults managed with long-term indwelling catheterization. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether selection of a latex catheter, hydrogel-coated latex catheter, silicone-coated latex catheter, or all- silicone catheter influences CAUTI risk. Expert opinion suggests that selection of a smaller French-sized catheter reduces CAUTI risk, but evidence is lacking. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Insertion of an antimicrobial catheter, either silver alloy or antimicrobial coated, is recommended for patients with short-term indwelling catheterization. There is insufficient evidence to recommend their use in patients managed by long-term indwelling catheterization. Selection of smaller French sizes for short- or long-term catheterization is thought to improve comfort and reduce CAUTI risk, but further research is needed to substantiate these best practice recommendations.

In 2001, the Institute of Medicine released the report "Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century." The report criticizes our health care system and argues that we are failing to provide Americans with the high-quality and affordable health care they deserve and need. While incremental progress has been made, we continue to strive for improved care quality, and our rising costs are potentially catastrophic. Consistent with the Institute of Medicine report, and its reputation for innovation, Inova Health System identified care model transformation as a system priority. Given that the organization is replacing its electronic health record and introducing advanced analytic capabilities, the opportunity to transform the model of care in tandem with core clinical platform enhancement was a compelling reason to move forward.

Poor designs and outmoded systems of work set the workforce up to fail (Institute of Medicine 2001). Nurses spend too much time "hunting and gathering" and in other non-value-added activities and, ultimately, patients suffer from the ineffective use of valuable resources. To successfully cross this "quality chasm," nurses and other professionals need to be working to full scopes of practice, engage in inter-professional collaborative teamwork and be provided with the technological and information infrastructure needed (Hendrich et al. 2008; Institute of Medicine 2011; Page 2004). Fundamentally, our work processes and physical environments significantly impede the delivery of safe, effective and efficient care (Baker et al. 2008).

Health care in the United States is notoriously expensive while often failing to deliver the care recommended in published guidelines. There is, therefore, a need to consider our approach to health-care delivery. Cancer care is a good example for consideration because it spans the continuum of health-care issues from primary prevention through long-term survival and end-of-life care. In this monograph, we emphasize that health-care delivery occurs in a multilevel system that includes organizations, teams, and individuals. To achieve health-care delivery consistent with the Institute of Medicine's six quality aims (safety, effectiveness, timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and equity), we must influence multiple levels of that multilevel system. The notion that multiple levels of contextual influence affect behaviors through interdependent interactions is a well-established ecological view. This view has been used to analyze health-care delivery and health disparities. However, experience considering multilevel interventions in health care is much less robust. This monograph includes 13 chapters relevant to expanding the foundation of research for multilevel interventions in health-care delivery. Subjects include clinical cases of multilevel thinking in health-care delivery, the state of knowledge regarding multilevel interventions, study design and measurement considerations, methods for combining interventions, time as a consideration in the evaluation of effects, measurement of effects, simulations, application of multilevel thinking to health-care systems and disparities, and implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Our goal is to outline an agenda to proceed with multilevel intervention research, not because it guarantees improvement in our current approach to health care, but because ignoring the complexity of the multilevel environment in which care occurs has not achieved the desired improvements in care quality outlined by the Institute of Medicine at the turn of the millennium.

Poor designs and outmoded systems of work set the workforce up to fail (Institute of Medicine 2001). Nurses spend too much time "hunting and gathering" and in other non-value-added activities and, ultimately, patients suffer from the ineffective use of valuable resources. To successfully cross this "quality chasm," nurses and other professionals need to be working to full scopes of practice, engage in inter-professional collaborative teamwork and be provided with the technological and information infrastructure needed (Hendrich et al. 2008; Institute of Medicine 2011; Page 2004). Fundamentally, our work processes and physical environments significantly impede the delivery of safe, effective and efficient care (Baker et al. 2008).

Background The degree to which medical care is patient-centered is frequently cited as a key attribute of healthcare quality. However, the precise definitions, skills and behaviors that underlie patient-centered care remain somewhat elusive. Methods We used a pragmatic literature review, focus groups with patients, and interviews with key delivery system and health plan leaders as well as primary care teams to guide development of an operational definition of patient-centered care. We then sought specific opportunites to partner with the health system leadership and disseminate this work, in order to mobilize our entire organization to find ways to become more patient-centered. As part of the focus groups and interviews, we gathered feedback about a proposed definition of patient-centered care that could be adopted organization wide. Results The literature review identified key attributes of patient-centered care at the system level, clinical level and interpersonal level. Both focus groups and interviews showed concordance in their views of what patient-centered care was--how it was defined, and how it was manifested by our doctors and our entire organization. We have utilized both evidence from the scientific literature and input from our members and practitioners to identify specific strategies and intervention opportunities for our health system. The field of patient-centered care research is fertile, however a clear taxonomy is needed to describe how patient-centeredness relates to related constructs such as activation, empowerment, doctor-patient communication, trust, and shared decision-making. Promising interventions exist, but few have been replicated. Conclusions Systems, and individuals within systems have opportunities to further develop and exemplify a patient-centered culture. Identifying specific attributes of delivery system design, communication, clincian training and optimal care transitions are among the areas that are ripe for improvement. Key issues that need to be addressed for successful cultural and system change and the highest priorities for research to support such change will be highlighted.

SETTING   The study was set in an Australian tertiary public hospital multidisciplinary pain center. OBJECTIVES   The objectives of the study were to describe the conceptual shift undertaken by a multidisciplinary team in moving from a traditional approach to an emerging paradigm in pain medicine and to describe the practical application of a whole-person model of care and report outcomes over the period 2003-2010. DESIGN   The study design was descriptive, including a brief review of current evidence base, consideration of models of service delivery, and analysis of the impact of applying a new, whole-person model of care for persistent pain. INTERVENTION   Since 2004, a series of changes led to significant health system redesign. The process involved development of a broader, whole-person understanding of the individual with pain and a more integrated approach to service delivery across the spectrum from community to tertiary care. RESULTS   Broad trends in the period 2003-2010 included a modest reduction in referral rate, marked reduction in waiting times, more efficient staff utilization, inversion of the ratio of new assessments to review appointments, increased telephone contact with primary care, increased use of personalized pain management plans, reduced procedural interventions and increased attendance at and clinically significant gains from shorter and more flexible group programs. CONCLUSIONS   Changes to conceptual framework inevitably influence the practicalities of service delivery. The application of a whole-person model for persistent pain brought improved engagement with the individual in pain and more efficient delivery of care at a systems level.

OBJECTIVE Patients' experiences are often treated as health care quality indicators. Our aim was to identify the range of experiences of health care delivery that matter to patients and to produce a conceptual map to facilitate consideration of why they matter. METHODS Broad-based review and critical interpretive synthesis of research literature on patients' perspectives of health care delivery. We recorded experiences reported by a diverse range of patients on 'concept cards', considered why they were important, and explored various ways of organizing them, including internationally recognized health care quality frameworks. We developed a conceptual map that we refined with feedback from stakeholders. RESULTS Patients identify many health care experiences as important. Existing health care quality frameworks do not cover them all. Our conceptual map presents a rich array of experiences, including health care relationships (beyond communication) and their implications for people's valued capabilities (e.g. to feel respected, contribute to their care, experience reciprocity). It is organized to reflect our synthesis argument, which links health care delivery to what people are enabled (or not) to feel, be and do. The map highlights the broad implications of the social dynamics of health care delivery. Experiences are labelled from a patient's perspective, rendering the importance of responsiveness to individuals axiomatic. CONCLUSIONS Our conceptual map identifies and helps explain the importance of diverse experiences of health care delivery. It challenges and helps policy-makers, service providers and researchers to attend to the range of experiences that matter, and to take seriously the need for responsiveness to individuals.

Commoditization pressures in medicine have risked transforming service provider selection from "survival of the fittest" to "survival of the cheapest." Quality- and safety-oriented mandates by the Institute of Medicine have led to the creation of a number of data-driven quality-centric initiatives including Pay for Performance and Evidence-Based Medicine. A synergistic approach to creating quantitative accountability in medical service delivery is through the creation of consumer-oriented performance metrics which provide patients with objective data related to individual service provider quality, safety, cost-efficacy, efficiency, and customer service. These performance metrics could in turn be customized to the individual preferences and health care needs of each individual patient, thereby providing an objective methodology for service provider selection while empowering health care consumers.

Patient-centered communication (PCC) is a critical element of patient-centered care, which the Institute of Medicine (Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, 2001) promulgates as essential to improving healthcare delivery. Consequently, the US National Cancer Institute's Strategic Plan for Leading the Nation (2006) calls for assessing the delivery of PCC in cancer care. However, no comprehensive measure of PCC exists, and stakeholders continue to embrace different conceptualizations and assumptions about how to measure it. Our approach was grounded in the PCC conceptual framework presented in a recent US National Cancer Institute monograph (Epstein & Street, 2007). In this study, we developed a comprehensive inventory of domains and subdomains for PCC by reviewing relevant literature and theories, interviewing a limited number of cancer patients, and consulting experts. The resulting measurement domains are organized under the six core functions specified in the PCC conceptual framework: exchanging information, fostering healing relationships, recognizing and responding to emotions, managing uncertainty, making decisions, and enabling patient self-management. These domains represent a promising platform for operationalizing the complicated PCC construct. Although this study focused specifically on cancer care, the PCC measurements are relevant to other clinical contexts and illnesses, given that patient-centered care is a goal across all healthcare. Finally, we discuss considerations for developing PCC measures for research, quality assessment, and surveillance purposes. United States Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (2006). The NCI Strategic Plan for Leading the Nation: To Eliminate the Suffering and Death Due to Cancer. NIH Publication No. 06-5773.

In the report "Crossing the Quality Chasm," the Institute of Medicine asserted that patient-centered care is one of the six domains of quality. In this article, the authors consider how the patient- and relationship-centered components of quality can be achieved in all aspects of medical care. They suggest that faculty development in three key areas-mindful practice, formation, and training in communication skills-is necessary to achieve patient- and relationship-centeredness.The authors first review the philosophical and scientific foundations of patient-centered and relationship-centered care. They next describe and provide concrete examples to illustrate the underlying theory and practices associated with each of the three faculty development areas. They then propose five key areas for faculty development in patient- and relationship-centered care:(1) making it a central competency in all health care interactions,(2) developing a national curriculum framework,(3) requiring performance metrics for professional development,(4) partnering with national health care organizations to disseminate the curriculum framework, and (5) preserving face-to-face educational methods for delivering key elements of the curriculum. Finally, the authors consider the issues faced in faculty development today in light of the medical education issues Abraham Flexner identified more than a century ago.