TY  - JOUR
T1  - Biofilm management using monofilament fibre debridement technology: outcomes and clinician and patient satisfaction
LA  - English
AU  - Roes, Claas
AU  - Calladine, Leanne
AU  - Morris, Clare
AB  - Objective:
Best practice in wound bed preparation and biofilm-based wound management includes debridement to create a clean wound bed and to assist in minimising the redevelopment of biofilm. Biofilm that is not removed inhibits healing and redevelops if not prevented from doing so with topical antimicrobial agents. Monofilament fibre debriding technology (MFDT) is used for effective and rapid mechanical debridement of loose material, slough and biofilm. The objective of this evaluation was to determine the clinical effect and consequential levels of health professional and patient satisfaction with the results of a biofilm pathway that included MFDT to achieve debridement.

Methods:
This non-comparative, open label evaluation was conducted in static and non-static wounds that required debridement. MFDT was used to debride in a two-week evaluation of a biofilm pathway. Wounds were debrided three times in week one and twice in week two. Each debridement was followed by treatment with an antimicrobial dressing. Other care included secondary dressings and compression delivered according to local practice, guidelines and formularies. After the clinical evaluation, health professionals were invited to complete an online survey of the clinical outcomes and their satisfaction with the biofilm pathway.

Results:
There were 706 health professionals who provided answers to the survey questions. Wound types evaluated were leg ulcers (67.4%), pressure ulcers (10%), dehisced surgical wounds (1.7%), diabetic foot ulcers (7.4%) and other wounds (13.4%). Of the wounds, 9% were reported as non-static despite the eligibility criteria. Not all wounds followed the pathway. The most frequently-used antimicrobial was silver. Non-antimicrobial products used included all-in-one dressings, other secondary dressings and compression. There was a change in 77% of wounds overall after two weeks. Change was reported almost equally for both static and non-static wounds. Health professionals who did or did not follow the pathway were ‘completely satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the overall clinical outcome 96% and 95%, respectively. Of the patients, 77% were ‘completely satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with healing after following the pathway, as reported by the treating health professional.

Conclusion:
The biofilm pathway that includes MFDT appears effective. Wounds managed on the pathway were debrided effectively and healing progressed to the satisfaction of both health professionals and patients.
DO  - 10.12968/jowc.2019.28.9.608
IS  - 9
PY  - 2019
SN  - 0969-0700
SP  - 608
EP  - 622
PM  - 31513491
JF  - Journal of Wound Care
ER  -