Challenges faced by doctors and nurses in wound care management during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey and their views on telehealth.

AIM: This study aimed to determine the problems faced by physicians and nurses dealing with chronic wound care during the COVID-19 pandemic and their views on telehealth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive and cross-sectional design was used in this study. The sample comprised physicians (n = 74) and nurses (n = 271) interested in chronic wound care. Data were collected through a questionnaire form consisting of open- and closed-ended questions. RESULTS: Of the participants, 21.4% (n = 74) were physicians and 78.6% (n = 271) were nurses. Of the physicians, 45.9% (n = 34) were obliged to work in another unit during the COVID-19 period, while 43.2% continued their service related to chronic wound care, and only 17.0% (n = 18) in the wound care service before the pandemic. These rates are 51.3% (n = 139), 51.6% (n = 157) and 36.8% (n = 128) for nurses, respectively. 40.7% of the physicians (n = 33) and 34.9% of the nurses (n = 106) stated that their time had been reduced for chronic wound care. When the telehealth experiences were examined, 32.4% (n = 24) of the physicians utilized telehealth, 29.7% (n = 22) used e-visit, 77.0% (n = 57) stated that they thought telehealth was a good option, 47.3% (n = 35) utilized it for wound evaluation and treatment, and 31.9% (n = 59) used smart phones. These rates for nurses were 16.6% (n = 45), 14.0% (n = 38), 72.7% (n = 197), 33.9% (n = 92), and 27.0% (n = 182), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected the manner of delivery, duration, and quality of service regarding wound management. During this period, face-to-face contact times with patients were reduced, some diagnosis and treatment attempts were not performed, and wound care services were suspended temporarily or permanently. On the other hand, a positive result was achieved in that the physicians and nurses gave positive feedback for the telehealth experience.

Determination of the effect of prophylactic dressing on the prevention of skin injuries associated with personal protective equipments in health care workers during COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM: The present study was carried out as a comparative observational study in order to determine the effect of prophylactic dressing on the prevention of skin injuries due to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in health care workers (HCWs) working with COVID-19 patients. In addition, the effect of nasal strip on the prevention of discomfort in breathing with mask was also investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was carried out with 48 HCWs (Control Group-CG, n = 20; Experimental Group 1-EG1, n = 20; Experimental Group 2-EG2, n = 8) who use PPE on the face region and work with COVID-19 patients. Data was collected with Data Collection Form developed by researchers. In participants in CG, normal procedures of the institution in using PPE were followed. In EG1, prophylactic dressing was used on risky areas on the face. In EG2, nasal strip sticky on one side was used in addition to prophylactic dressing. The evaluation of the facial skin was made once a day by a researcher with expertise in wound management. RESULTS: Groups were similar in terms of demographic characteristics of participants. Overall rate of skin injuries associated with PPE use was 47.9%. Skin injuries developed in all participants in CG (n = 20), and in two and one participants in EG1 and EG2 respectively, with significant difference between groups. The most common skin injuries were Stage 1 pressure injury (29.2%), blanchable erythema of intact skin (27.1%) and itching (18.8%). No participant in EG2 reported discomfort in breathing (n = 8). Significant difference was found between groups in favor of EG2 in terms of experiencing discomfort in breathing (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, it was established that using prophylactic dressing under PPE prevents skin injuries on the facial skin and using nasal strip prevents discomfort in breathing with mask. In view of these results, it was recommended that prophylactic dressing should be used under PPE.