Share this article

Canada; The OneNPWT clinical decision tree for open wounds

Adam Power, Francois Paquet, Kevin Lee, Kevin Woo, Marie-Claude Lacroix-Boulanger, Sarah Wong

25 April 2023

Chronic non-healing wounds present a substantial human and economic burden on healthcare systems across Canada (Hopkins et al, 2015). Evidence-based recommendations are required to guide clinical decisions regarding negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) systems and to drive clinical, operational, and financial efficiencies for healthcare providers.

The OneNPWT clinical decision tree is a clinical decision-making tool to simplify and optimise NPWT provision and to help guide the selection of RENASYS™ Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System (RENASYS™ tNPWT; Smith + Nephew, Hull, UK) or PICO™ Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System (PICO™ sNPWT; Smith+Nephew, Hull, UK). Prompt selection of PICO™ sNPWT has been shown to quicken patient discharge, improve patient satisfaction, alleviate workloads associated with system maintenance and reduce healthcare costs (Hurd et al, 2021).

A panel of clinicians from Canada experienced in wound care and NPWT use was convened. The panelists’ specialties included vascular surgery, chronic disease management, gerontology, emergency medicine, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and plastic surgery. The panel aimed to review the clinical, operational, and financial challenges of using either RENASYS™ tNPWT or PICO™ sNPWT, and to validate the potential of the OneNPWT clinical decision tree as an evidence-based decision-making tool in their practice. During the discussion, a facilitator posed questions to the clinicians about the OneNPWT clinical decision tree, including its usefulness for clinical practice, barriers to its adoption, whether they would implement the decision tree in their practice, and suggestions for improvement.

This document provides an overview of the panel’s feedback based on their clinical experience of using the OneNPWT decision tree in practice, with the cases summarised below.

↓ Download pdf

Disclaimer: Supported by an educational grant from Smith+Nephew.

References

Apelqvist J, Willy C, Fagerdahl AM et al (2017) EWMA Document: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy. J Wound Care 26: S1-S154

Banasiewicz T, Banky B, Karsenti A et al (2019) Traditional and single-use NPWT: when to use and how to decide on the appropriate use? Recommendations of an expert panel. Wounds International

Bates-Jensen BM (2001) Bates-Jensen wound assessment tool. Instructions for use. Available at: https://www.southwesthealthline.ca/healthlibrary_docs/B.6.1b.Bates-JensenTool.pdf (accessed 31.01.2023)

Brownhill R (2019) PICO Biomechanical Study. Data on file report DS/19/211/R

Brownhill VR, Huddleston E, Bell A (2021) Pre-Clinical Assessment of Single-Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy During In Vivo Porcine Wound Healing. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) 10(7): 345-56

Casey C (2019) Consistent delivery of therapeutic negative pressure levels by a single use negative pressure wound therapy system (sNPWT)* in a wound model. Paper presented at: EWMA; Gothenburg, Sweden

Cray A (2017) Negative pressure wound therapy and nurse education. Br J Nurs 26(15): S6-S18

Dowsett C, Hampton K, Myers D, Styche T (2017) Use of PICO to improve clinical and economic outcomes in hard-to-heal wounds. Wounds International 8(2): 52-8

Edwards D, Bourke N, Murdoch J, Verma S (2018) Using portable, single-use, canister-free, negative-pressure wound therapy for plastic surgery wounds. Wounds UK 14(3)

Forlee M, Richardson J, Rossington A et al (2016) An interim analysis of device functionality and usability of RENASYS™ TOUCH – a new portable Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) system. Paper presented at: Wounds UK; Harrogate, UK

Forlee M, van Zyl L, Louw V et al (2018) A randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical efficacy and acceptability of adjustable intermittent and continuous Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) in a new portable NPWT system. Paper presented at: EWMA; Krakow, Poland

Fraccalvieri M, Fierro MT, Salomone M et al (2012) Gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy: a valid method to manage pyoderma gangrenosum. International Wound Journal 11: 164-68

Gilchrist B, Robinson M, Jaimes H (2020) Performance, safety, and efficacy of a single use negative pressure wound therapy system for surgically closed incision sites and skin grafts: A prospective multi-centre follow-up study. Paper presented at: SAWC; Virtual

Guest JF, Fuller GW, Vowden P (2020) Cohort study evaluating the burden of wounds to the UK’s National Health Service in 2017/2018: update from 2012/2013. BMJ Open 10(12): e045253

Hampton J (2015) Providing cost-effective treatment of hard-to-heal wounds in the community through use of NPWT. Community Wound Care S14-S20

Hopkins RB, Burke N, Harlock J et al (2015) Economic burden of illness associated with diabetic foot ulcers in Canada. BMC Health Services Research 13: 1-9

Hudson DA, Adams KG, Van Huyssteen A et al (2015) Simplified negative pressure wound therapy: clinical evaluation of an ultraportable, no-canister system. Int Wound J 12(2): 195–201

Hurd T, Trueman P, Rossington A (2014) Use of a Portable, Single-use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Device in Home Care Patients with Low to Moderately Exuding Wounds: A Case Series. Ostomy Wound Management 60(3): 30-6

Hurd T, Chadwick P, Cote J, Cockwill J, Mole T, Smith J (2010) Impact of gauze-based NPWT on the patient and nursing experience in the treatment of challenging wounds. Int Wound J 7(6): 448-55

Hurd T, Kirsner RS, Sancho-Insenser JJ et al (2021) International Consensus Panel Recommendations for the Optimization of Traditional and Single-Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Treatment of Acute and Chronic Wounds. Wounds 33(2): S1-S11

Janssen AHJ, Wegdam JA, de Vries Reilingh TS et al (2021) Which determinants are considered to be important for adherence to Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: A multimethods study. J Tissue Viability 30(2): 250-255

Johnson S (2008) V1STAR – A new option in Negative Pressure Therapy. Journal of Wound Technology 1: 30-31

Karlakki SL, Hamad AK, Whittall C et al (2016) Incisional negative pressure wound therapy dressings (iNPWTd) in routine primary hip and knee arthroplasties: A randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 5(8): 328-37

Kirsner R, Dove C, Reyzelman A et al (2019) A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled Clinical Trial on the Efficacy of a single-use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System, compared to Traditional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Ulcers of the Lower Extremities. Wound Repair Regen 27(5): 519–529

Kirsner RS, Delhougne G, Searle RJ (2020) A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single-use and traditional negative pressure wound therapy to treat chronic venous and diabetic foot ulcers. Wound Manag Prev 66(3): 30–38

Kirsner RS, Hurd T (2020) Assessing the Need for Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Utilization Guidelines: An Overview of the Challenges With Providing Optimal Care. Wounds 32(12): 328-33

O’leary DP, Peirce C, Anglim B et al (2017) Prophylactic Negative Pressure Dressing Use in Closed Laparotomy Wounds Following Abdominal Operations: A Randomized, Controlled, Open-label Trial: The P.I.C.O. Trial. Ann Surg 265(6): 1082-6

Seidel D, Diedrich S, Herrle F et al (2020) Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs Conventional Wound Treatment in Subcutaneous Abdominal Wound Healing Impairment: The SAWHI Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg 155(6): 469-78

Selvaggi F, Pellino G, Sciaudone G et al (2014) New Advances in Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) for Surgical Wounds of Patients Affected with Chron’s Disease. Surgical Technology International 24: 83-9

Sen CK, Gordillo GM, Roy S et al (2009) Human skin wounds: a major and snowballing threat to public health and the economy. Wound Repair Regen 17(6): 763-71

Sen CK (2019) Human Wounds and Its Burden: An Updated Compendium of Estimates. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) 8(2): 39-48

Smith+Nephew (2018a) Summary of routine QA testing on MVP of PICO dressings. Internal Report. DS/18/153/R

Smith+Nephew (2018b) PICO 7Y – Waterproofness of dressings. Internal Report. DS/18/134/R

Smith+Nephew (2018c) PICO 14 Pump weight and dimensions. Internal Report. RD/18/137

Smith+Nephew (2018d) Kendal PICO 7Y – pump weight and dimensions. Internal Report. DS.18.066.R

Smith+Nephew (2019a) PICO Biomechanical Study. Internal Report. DS/19/211/R

Smith+Nephew (2019b) Use of Moisture Vapour Permeability* (MVP) and Moisture Vapour Transmission rate** (MVTR) data to support product claims referring to moist wound healing. Internal Report

Smith+Nephew (2020) Bacterial barrier testing of the PICO Dressing. Internal Report. 2001002

Smith+Nephew (2021) PICO™ Pressure Mapping Study. Internal Report

Tanaydin V, Beugels J, Andriessen A et al (2018) Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Disposable Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy with Standard Care in Bilateral Breast Reduction Mammoplasty Evaluating Surgical Site Complications and Scar Quality. Aesthetic Plast Surg 42(4): 927-35

Wounds International (2023) Europe, the Middle East and Africa: The OneNPWT clinical decision tree for open wounds. Wounds International

World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS; 2019) Wound exudate: effective assessment and management Wounds International

World Union of Wound Healing Societies (2020) Optimising wound care through patient engagement. Wounds International