Is a wound swab for microbiological analysis supportive in the clinical assessment of infection of a chronic wound?

AIM: To determine whether bacteriological analysis of a wound swab is supportive in the clinical assessment of infection of a chronic wound. METHODS: Patients attending an outpatient wound clinic who had endured a chronic wound for more than 3 weeks were clinically assessed for infection. In addition, standardized wound swabs were taken according to the Levine technique and the microbiological findings of the swabs compared with the clinical assessment of the wounds. RESULTS: There was no significant relationship between the clinical assessments of the chronic wounds and the qualitative or quantitative bacteriological results of the swabs. CONCLUSION: Microbiological analysis of wound swabs taken from chronic wounds to support clinical assessment of the wounds is waste of time and money. It may be preferable to assess chronic wounds clinically, however, validation studies of these signs and symptoms are needed.

Prevalence of chronic wounds and structural quality indicators of chronic wound care in Dutch nursing homes.

The aim of this study was to measure the prevalence of (infected) chronic wounds in Dutch nursing homes and to explore which signs and symptoms are used to diagnose infected chronic wounds. Moreover, it was to determine which structural quality indicators related to chronic wound care at ward and institutional levels were fulfilled. In April 2012, as part of the annual National Prevalence Measurement of Care Problems of Maastricht University [Landelijke Prevalentiemeting Zorgproblemen (LPZ)], a multi-center cross-sectional point-prevalence measurement was carried out together with an assessment of relevant care quality indicators. The prevalence was 4·2%; 16 of 72 (22%) chronic wounds were considered to be infected. Increase of exudate (81·3%; n = 13), erythema (68·8%; n = 11), pain (56·3%; n = 9) and wound recalcitrance (56·3%; n = 9) were considered to be diagnostic signs and symptoms of a chronic wound infection. Although at institutional level most quality indicators were fulfilled, at ward level this was not the case. Despite the relatively low number of residents, we consider our population as representative for the nursing home population. It may be an advantage to appoint specific ward nurses and to provide them specifically with knowledge and skills concerning chronic wounds.

Swab versus biopsy for the diagnosis of chronic infected wounds.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this review was to investigate the usefulness of a wound swab (using the Levine or Z technique) in comparison with a biopsy as a reliable method for the diagnosis of a chronic wound infection. METHOD: A literature review using the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, and MEDLINE were searched by strategy. A total of 6 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS: The Levine technique detects more organisms in acute wounds, as well as in chronic wounds, than the Z technique. Comparing both with the biopsy as criterion standard, the diagnostic accuracy to diagnose a chronic wound infection by the Levine technique was higher in comparison to the Z technique. At a threshold of 3.7 × 10(4) microorganisms per swab, the Levine technique had a sensitivity of 0.90, a specificity of 57%, and a positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 0.77 and 0.91, respectively. Description of the method of swab taking was diverse and not uniform. DISCUSSION: Only a few studies in the literature compare wound swabs with biopsies for the diagnosis of chronic infected wounds. Until now, the Levine technique has been considered as the most reliable and valid method, but there is an urgent need for a well-designed study with a sufficient number of patients to optimize the diagnostic accuracy of chronic infected wounds. CONCLUSION: The best sampling technique for taking a swab has not yet been identified and validated. Until then, the authors recommend the Levine technique.