Introduction It is well documented that the prevalence of venous leg ulcers (VLUs) is increasing, coinciding with an ageing population. Accurate global prevalence of VLUs is difficult to estimate due to the range of methodologies used in studies and accuracy of reporting. (1) Venous ulceration is the most common type of leg ulceration and a significant clinical problem, affecting approximately 1% of the population and 3% of people over 80 years of age (2) in westernised countries. Moreover, the global prevalence of VLUs is predicted to escalate dramatically, as people are living longer, often with multiple comorbidities. Recent figures on the prevalence of VLUs are based on a small number of studies, conducted in Western countries, and the evidence is weak. However, it is estimated that 93% of VLUs will heal in 12 months, and 7% remain unhealed after five years. (3) Furthermore, the recurrence rate within 3 months after wound closure is as high as 70%. (4) (-6) Thus, cost-effective adjunct evidence-based treatment strategies and services are needed to help prevent these ulcers, facilitate healing when they occur and prevent recurrence. The impact of a VLU represents social, personal, financial and psychological costs on the individual and further economic drain on the health-care system. This brings the challenge of providing a standardised leg ulcer service which delivers evidence-based treatment for the patient and their ulcer. It is recognised there are variations in practice and barriers preventing the implementation of best practice. There are patients not receiving appropriate and timely treatment in the initial development of VLUs, effective management of their VLU and preventing recurrence once the VLU has healed. Health-care professionals (HCPs) and organisations must have confidence in the development process of clinical practice guidelines and have ownership of these guidelines to ensure those of the highest quality guide their practice. These systematic judgments can assist in policy development, and decision making, improve communication, reduce errors and improve patient outcomes. There is an abundance of studies and guidelines that are available and regularly updated, however, there is still variation in the quality of the services offered to patients with a VLU. There are also variations in the evidence and some recommendations contradict each other, which can cause confusion and be a barrier to implementation. (7) The difference in health-care organisational structures, management support and the responsibility of VLU management can vary in different countries, often causing confusion and a barrier to seeking treatment. These factors further complicate the guideline implementation process, which is generally known to be a challenge with many diseases. (8).

BackgroundAdherence to medication is vital for disease management while simultaneously reducing healthcare expenditure. Older persons with cognitive impairment (CI) are at risk for non-adherence as cognitive processes are needed to manage medications. This systematic review focuses on the relationship between medication non-adherence and specific cognitive domains in persons with CI, and explores determinants of medication non-adherence. When available, relationships and factors are compared with cognitively intact populations.MethodsA seven database systematic search of studies published between 1 January 1949–31 December 2015 examining medication non-adherence in community dwelling persons with CI or dementia was conducted. Articles reporting medication non-adherence in people with CI or dementia in the community, with or without caregiver supports were eligible for inclusion. Papers reporting adherence to treatments in cognitively intact populations, populations from hospital or institutional settings, for non-prescribed medication or those describing dementia as a factor predicting medication non-adherence were excluded. Data on study and population characteristics, research design, data sources and analysis, specific cognitive domains, non-adherence prevalence, measurement of adherence, salient findings, factors associated with adherence and strategies to improve medication adherence were extracted. Study limitations included inconsistencies between data sources and definitions, resulting in a loss of fidelity in the value and comprehensiveness of data, as well as exclusion of non-pharmacological treatments and regimens.FindingsFifteen studies met inclusion criteria. Adherence among CI subjects ranged from 10.7%-38% with better rates of adherence in non-CI individuals. Medication non-adherence definitions varied considerably. New-learning, memory and executive functioning were associated with improved adherence and formed the focus of most studies. Multiple factors were identified as modulators of non-adherence.ConclusionThis review highlights a gap in knowledge on how specific cognitive domains contribute to medication non-adherence amongst CI populations, and demonstrates the current focus is limited to two domains: memory and executive functioning.

Wound management is a significant and growing issue worldwide. Knowledge of dressing products and clinical expertise in dressing selection are two major components in holistic wound management to ensure evidence-based wound care. With expanding global market of dressing products, there is need to update clinician knowledge of dressing properties in wound care. Optimal wound management depends on accurate patient assessment, wound diagnosis, clinicians' knowledge of the wound healing process and properties of wound dressings. We conducted a comprehensive review of the physical properties of wound dressing products, including the advantages and disadvantages, indications and contraindications and effectiveness of first-line interactive/bioactive dressing groups commonly used in clinical practice. These include semipermeable films, foams, hydroactives, alginates, hydrofibers, hydrocolloids, and hydrogels. In making decisions regarding dressing product selection, clinicians need to ensure a holistic assessment of patient and wound etiology, and understand dressing properties when making clinical decisions using wound management guidelines to ensure optimal patient outcomes. This review has highlighted there is lack of high quality evidence and the need for future well designed trials.

The availability of different types of wound dressings has increased in the last decade. Wound care practitioners have at their disposal an extensive range of dressings. Emerging dressing types include interactive/bioactive dressings and tissue-engineered skin substitutes. There is no one dressing that is suitable for the management of all types of chronic wounds and few are suited for the treatment of a single wound during all stages of the healing cycle. Successful wound management depends on an understanding of the healing process combined with knowledge of the properties of the various dressings available. Without such knowledge and careful assessment of all the factors that effect healing, dressing selection is likely to be arbitrary and ineffective, wasteful both in terms of time and physical resources. This article is an overview of some of the first-line and second-line interactive/bioactive dressings available. A synopsis of wound assessment and wound bed preparation will aid in choosing the appropriate dressings. It will also touch on advanced technologies including tissue-engineered skin substitutes. INTRODUCTIONNormal wound healing processes require restoration of epithelialisation and collagen formation. The first occurs by migration and proliferation of keratinocytes from the wound edges and by differentiation of stem cells from remaining hair follicle bulbs. The second occurs by influx of growth factors secreted by macrophages, platelets and fibroblasts, by fibroblast proliferation and subsequent synthesis and remodelling of collagenous dermal matrix. However, in the case of full-thickness burn injuries and chronic wounds such as pressure ulcers, venous ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers these processes are damaged and new technologies have been developed to improve the healing in these conditions. 1 The time it takes for a chronic wound to heal varies due to the idiosyncratic nature of each wound and inherent complex factors, which may impede healing. Infection, poor blood supply, immobility, diabetes, medicines, inadequate hydration and nutrition, trauma and poor wound management are causative or contributory factors. Tissue repair research and advances in moist wound healing pharmaceuticals have been pivotal in improving wound dressing technology. 2 Clinical experience suggests that wound healing is often impaired in the elderly. The elderly have a high prevalence of chronic leg and pressure ulcers and are vulnerable to skin tears that can be slow to heal due to decreased dermal thickness and the loss of proliferative capacity of the ageing dermis. 3 Chronic wounds represent a significant burden in human and economic costs. 4

No abstract