Establishing a consensus on wound infection definitions.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to establish an international, interorganisational consensus on wound infection terminology. METHODS: This project consisted of definition scoping and a Delphi process to produce a consensus glossary for 18 wound infection terms. Recent guidelines/consensus documents were reviewed to identify 2-4 definitions for each term. An online consensus process was undertaken using the RAND Appropriateness Method, a consensus method for panels to reach agreement. International wound organisations nominated experts to participate, from whom 21 participants were selected to represent different organisations, geographic regions and disciplines. In the first consensus round, each term was presented alongside 2-3 definitions and participants nominated their preferred definition, with the majority vote used to select a baseline definition. The consensus process then proceeded, with participants using a 9-point Likert scale to score their level of agreement or disagreement with the definition for each term. Participants also provided a justification outlining the reason behind their rating. At the end of each round, an index was calculated to provide a quantitative evaluation indicating whether agreement or disagreement had been reached. RESULTS: Reasoning statements were summarised and the definitions were adjusted to incorporate concepts identified by participants. The adjusted definition was presented in the next consensus round, together with the reasoning statements. Terms for which a final definition was not achieved in three consensus rounds were finalised with preferential voting using 2-3 definitions that had reached consensus. PROJECT PROGRESS AND SIGNIFICANCE: The project generated a glossary of wound infection terms, endorsed through participation of 15 international organisations, for dissemination of guidelines and clinical decision-making/teaching tools.

Priority issues for pressure injury research: An Australian consensus study.

Pressure injuries are a significant health concern in all clinical settings. The current body of research on pressure injuries reported in the literature presents primarily low level evidence. The purpose of the current study was to identify and prioritize pressure injury research issues. The approach entailed evidence scoping and implementing a formal consensus process using a modified nominal group technique based on the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method. Sixteen Australian pressure injury experts participated in five consensus voting rounds in May to June 2015. From 60 initial research issues, the experts reached agreement that 26 issues are a priority for future pressure injury research. The highest priorities were strategies to assess skin and tissues, appropriate outcome measures for indicators of pressure injury healing and recurrence, heel pressure off-loading and shear reduction strategies, economic cost of pressure injuries and their management and effectiveness of skin moisturizers and barrier products. Developing a prioritized research agenda, informed by clinical and academic pressure injury experts, can assist in reducing the burden of pressure injuries by identifying topics of the highest need for further research. A web-based nominal group voting process was successful in engaging expert decision-making and has wide-reaching international appeal in facilitating cost-effective consensus methodologies. The priority list generated from this research is currently used in Australia to inform government investment in pressure injury research.