This paper aims to estimate the patterns of care and related resource use attributable to managing acute and chronic wounds among a catchment population of a typical clinical commissioning group (CCG)/ health board and corresponding National Health Service (NHS) costs in the UK. This was a sub-analysis of a retrospective cohort analysis of the records of 2000 patients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. Patients’ characteristics, wound-related health outcomes and health-care resource use were quanti ed for an average CCG/health board with a catchment population of 250,000 adults ≥18 years of age, and the corresponding NHS cost of patient management was estimated at 2013/2014 prices. An average CCG/health board was estimated to be managing 11,200 wounds in 2012/2013. Of these, 40% were considered to be acute wounds, 48% chronic and 12% lacking any speci c diagnosis. The prevalence of acute, chronic and unspeci ed wounds was estimated to be growing at the rate of 9%, 12% and 13% per annum respectively. Our analysis indicated that the current rate of wound healing must increase by an average of at least 1% per annum across all wound types in order to slow down the increasing prevalence. Otherwise, an average CCG/health board is predicted to manage ~23,200 wounds per annum by 2019/2020 and is predicted to spend a discounted (the process of determining the present value of a payment that is to be received in the future) £50 million on managing these wounds and associated comorbidities. Real-world evidence highlights the substantial burden that acute and chronic wounds impose on an average CCG/health board. Strategies are required to improve the accuracy of diagnosis and healing rates. Declaration of interest: The study’s sponsors had no involvement in the study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, the writing of this manuscript and the decision to submit this article for publication. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the Department of Health, or any of the other sponsors.

The aim of this study was to estimate the patterns of care and annual levels of health care resource use attributable to the management of different wound types by UK’s National Health Service (NHS) in 2012/2013 and the annual costs incurred by the NHS in managing them. This was a retrospective cohort analysis of the records of 2000 patients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) Database. Patients’ characteristics, wound-related health outcomes and all health care resource use were quanti ed, and the total NHS cost of patient management was estimated at 2013/2014 prices. The NHS managed an estimated 2⋅2 million patients with a wound during 2012/2013. Patients were predominantly managed in the community by general practitioners and nurses. The annual NHS cost varied between £1⋅94 billion for managing 731 000 leg ulcers and £89⋅6 million for managing 87 000 burns. Sixty-one percent of all wounds were shown to heal in an average year. Resource use associated with managing the unhealed wounds was substantially greater than that of managing the healed wounds (e.g. 20% more practice nurse visits, 104% more community nurse visits). Consequently, the annual cost of managing wounds that healed in the study period was estimated to be £2⋅1 billion compared with £3⋅2 billion for the 39% of wounds that did not heal within the study year. Within the study period, the cost per healed wound ranged from £698 to £3998 per patient and that of an unhealed wound ranged from £1791 to £5976 per patient. Hence, the patient care cost of an unhealed wound was a mean 135% more than that of a healed wound. Real-world evidence highlights the substantial burden that wounds impose on the NHS in an average year. Clinical and economic bene ts to both patients and the NHS could accrue from strategies that focus on (a) wound prevention, (b) accurate diagnosis and (c) improving wound-healing rates.

As the prevalence and incidence of wounds are predicted to increase due to an ageing population with increasing comorbidities, reducing the burden of wounds by optimising healing is seen as a key factor in lowering wound care costs. Inappropriate or delayed treatment adversely affects the time to wound healing, impacting quality of life, and increasing the burden on patients, their families and carers, society and the health economy. Identifying non-healing wounds is vital to cost reduction. Failure to recognise wounds not progressing towards healing increases the subsequent risk of non-healing and places the patient at unnecessary increased risk of wound complications.

The recently published ‘Burden of Wounds’ study (Guest et al, 2015a) not only highlighted the cost of delivering wound care in the UK but also revealed a number of shortcomings in the method of care delivery, many of which could potentially have adversely affected patient outcome. This paper looks more closely at some of the clinical and service issues raised by the published data from the study and combines this with observations made by the research team when reviewing the patient records to generate a number of recommendations for improvements in staff engagement, documentation, clinical management and service delivery. By implementing these recommendations variations in care standards should be reduced, delayed and non- healing be recognised earlier and as a result cost savings generated.

Bullosis diabeticorum is considered a rare skin manifestation of diabetes mellitus. Tense blisters appear rapidly, mostly on the feet, the cause of which is unclear, with multiple pathophysiologies hypothesised. This is a retrospective review of 4 diabetic patients who presented over six months with diabetic bullae; the condition may therefore not be as rare as commonly believed. All the patients had early surgical debridement followed by topical negative pressure wound dressings. A multidisciplinary team that included vascular surgeons, diabetologists, diabetic foot care team, wound care team, physiotherapists and occupational therapists managed the patients and none of them required amputations. We propose an alternative way of managing these patients with early surgical debridement followed by topical negative pressure wound dressing.

The establishment of a correct diagnosis links care to established guidelines and underpins all subsequent therapeutic activity. Problems can arise when definitions of disease overlap, as is the case with diabetic foot ulceration and pressure ulcers on the foot occurring in people with diabetes. In such cases, clinicians must ensure that patients receive a care bundle that recognises both the wound causation (pressure and shear) and the underlying pathology (diabetic neuropathy, potential foot architecture disruption and ischaemia). All patients with diabetes that have foot ulceration, irrespective of wound aetiology should, therefore, be seen by the multidisciplinary diabetic foot team. Care can then be optimised to include appropriate assessments, including assessment of peripheral perfusion, correct offloading, appropriate diabetic management, and general foot and skin care.

Knowledge of clinically and cost-effective wound management is an obvious requirement for surgeons, yet wound care education rarely features within the medical curriculum. As a result surgical trainees are often poorly placed to join in multidisciplinary wound management and may feel threatened when asked to manage wound complications. A vast range of dressing products exists yet robust evidence of the function and effectiveness of individual products is often lacking. An understanding of wound pathophysiology, a defined treatment goal and regular wound assessment combined with knowledge of basic wound dressing categories will provide guidance on product selection for different clinical situations and wound types.

Many service commissioners are demanding a reduction in pressure ulcer prevalence and regard pressure ulceration as a key indicator of care quality. Within our area of practice, local commissioners have indicated that all health care providers in the district should work together to reduce pressure ulceration across the local health care economy. Health care professionals clearly have a critical role to play in patient assessment, risk categorisation, care planning and equipment provision. However, this alone will not be sufficient to achieve the reduction targets which will involve effective patient engagement. National and International guidelines all recognise the importance of patient education in care and recognise the significance of patient involvement in personalised care planning and service provision. Hartigan et al have demonstrated the value of education leaflets in supporting pressure ulcer prevention in an elderly population. Patient support applications running on mobile phones and tablets are also available to assist in pressure ulcer prevention and patient education but are not widely used in a hospital setting. This study examines how effective standard verbal and written information is at delivering patient education for pressure ulcer prevention. Local hospital policy is that all patients identied as being at risk of developing pressure ulceration are provided with information on what a pressure ulcer is, what constitutes risk and how to assist staff in pressure ulcer prevention. The policy includes patient and carer involvement in care planning, and encouragement to report skin changes and pain to staff.

Knowledge of clinically and cost-effective wound management is an obvious requirement for surgeons, yet wound care education rarely features within the medical curriculum. As a result surgical trainees are often poorly placed to join in multidisciplinary wound management and may feel threatened when asked to manage wound complications. A vast range of dressing products exists yet robust evidence of the function and effectiveness of individual products is often lacking. An understanding of wound pathophysiology, a defined treatment goal and regular wound assessment combined with knowledge of basic wound dressing categories will provide guidance on product selection for different clinical situations and wound types.

Lower-limb ischaemia is a frequently unrecognised consequence of arterial disease. It not only compromises wound healing, but is a harbinger of more generalised cardiovascular disease. Detection and appropriate management will not only improve wound healing, but also reduce patient morbidity and mortality by allowing proactive risk modification. Ischaemia is an important factor in skin vulnerability and a major cause of delayed wound healing. Recognition of ischaemia is, therefore, important if wound prevention strategies are to be effective and wound healing optimised. The detection of ischaemia can, however, be difficult and requires a careful evaluation of patient symptoms and clinical signs [Box 1]. It is also important to carry out a detailed physical examination, often supported by investigations, such as Doppler examination of peripheral pulses, ankle blood pressure measurements and the calculation of the ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI).