The potential impact of biofilm on healing in acute and chronic wounds is one of the most controversial current issues in wound care. A significant amount of laboratory-based research has been carried out on this topic, however, in 2013 the European Wound Management Association (EWMA) pointed out the lack of guidance for managing biofilms in clinical practice and solicited the need for guidelines and further clinical research. In response to this challenge, the Italian Nursing Wound Healing Society (AISLeC) initiated a project which aimed to achieve consensus among a multidisciplinary and multiprofessional international panel of experts to identify what could be considered part of 'good clinical practice' with respect to the recognition and management of biofilms in acute and chronic wounds. The group followed a systematic approach, developed by the GRADE working group, to define relevant questions and clinical recommendations raised in clinical practice. An independent librarian retrieved and screened approximately 2000 pertinent published papers to produce tables of levels of evidence. After a smaller focus group had a multistep structured discussion, and a formal voting process had been completed, ten therapeutic interventions were identified as being strongly recommendable for clinical practice, while another four recommendations were graded as being 'weak'. The panel subsequently formulated a preliminary statement (although with a weak grade of agreement): 'provided that other causes that prevent optimal wound healing have been ruled out, chronic wounds are chronically infected'. All members of the panel agreed that there is a paucity of reliable, well-conducted clinical trials which have produced clear evidence related to the effects of biofilm presence. In the meantime it was agreed that expert-based guidelines were needed to be developed for the recognition and management of biofilms in wounds and for the best design of future clinical trials. This is a fundamental and urgent task for both laboratory-based scientists and clinicians.

The authors have no conflict of interest regarding this research. This is an investigator initiated trial. B. Braun Milano SpA kindly provided the material under investigation for both treatment groups, and paid the Ethics Committees' application fees in all participating centres.

Objective: The main aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of pressure ulcers (PU) and related risk factors of PU development in hospitalised patients in Italy. Furthermore, the study investigated the association between risk factors for PU present on admission and the development during hospitalisation (hospital-acquired pressure ulcer, HAPU). Methods: A cross-sectional study, using two separate designs at two separate timepoints: 2010 and 2015. The methodology used to measure PU prevalence was that recommended by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP). Results: The total sample was 7681 hospitalised patients (3011 patients in 2010, 4670 in 2015). Prevalence of PU in hospital was 19.5% in 2010 and 17% in 2015. The number of patients with PU present on admission were 9.60% in 2010 and 9.42% in 2015. Patients with HAPU were 5.08% in 2010 and 5.87% in 2015. Older age and comorbidities, and a total Braden score of ≤16 were positively associated with PU present on admission and HAPU in hospitals (p<0.05). A longer length of stay appeared to correlate positively with a better clinical outcome for PU if there were already present on admission. Heterogeneous results emerged for length of stay of >30 days and being admitted to intensive care unit (ICU). Conclusion: Our results are comparable with other European and Italian studies. Most of the risk factors associated with PU development have been confirmed. However, further studies are needed to examine the effects of context on PU present on arrival and HAPU, especially regarding hospital length of stay.

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) represent a relevant problem for all healthcare facilities, because they involve both the care aspect and the economic management of the hospital. Most HAIs are preventable through effective Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures. Implementation and improvement of IPC programs are critical to reducing the impact of these infections and the spread of multi-resistant microorganisms. The purpose of this Expert Opinion statement was to provide a practical guide for healthcare organizations, physicians, and nursing staff on the optimal implementation of the core components of Infection Prevention and Control, as recommended by a board of specialists after in-depth discussion of the available evidence in this field. According to their independent suggestions and clinical experiences, as well as evidence-based practices and literature review, this document provides a practical bundle of organizational, structural, and professional requirements necessary to promote, through multimodal strategies, the improvement of the quality and safety of care with respect to infectious risk in order to protect the patient, facilities, and healthcare providers.

Objective: To produce recommendations for the design of reliable and informative clinical investigations in chronic wound infection. Method: A multidisciplinary panel of international experts from four countries (Italy, UK, Ireland and the US) were involved in a detailed, semi-structured discussion on how to better select and describe a target population, interventions and outcomes, and which infection-related criteria to apply in order to achieve a high-quality trial. Consent among the experts was measured using the Delphi method and GRADE Working Group suggestions. The project was fully supported by AISLeC 2016 (Italian Nursing Society for Wound Care Study). Results: In total, 37 recommendations achieved substantial agreement among the experts; 10 concerned the most appropriate description and selection of a target population, four related to interventions and 15 to outcomes. A further eight statements about critical methodological points were approved. Conclusion: Developing recommendations in a systematic manner through a representative group of experts could generate tools for improving the design of clinical trials in this challenging area.