OneNPWT
Negative pressure wound therapy can be complicated to manage, adding to costs and workloads; potentially resulting in delayed discharge and pressure on resources. International expert guidelines recommend a simplified decision-making framework to help inform the appropriate use of NPWT1,2
Achieving clinical outcomes while tackling costs and inefficiencies
NPWT has well-documented clinical benefits across acute and chronic wound indications,3-5 yet there may be obstacles to clinician confidence and timely therapy initiation.1,2
- NPWT decision-making can be complex, which may impact clinician confidence and wound outcomes2,6
- 38% of patients discontinue their therapy sooner than clinically recommended, many of whom due to the impact on their quality of life7
- Logistics and paperwork relating to tNPWT can create additional work, potentially delaying patient discharge and increasing overall costs of care2,8
- Costs are increasing quicker than budgets, and complex inventory management can be a drain on resources
Unlocking the full potiential of NPWT
Reduce the number of NPWT options and simplify your inventory to help optimise the clinical benefits of NPWT using our proprietary traditional and single-use technologies. Clinical studies have demonstrated:
- Improved patient comfort and tolerability with the RENASYS◊ System’s unique Soft Port Technology*9
- The RENASYS TOUCH System was found to be comfortable by over 90% of patients4
- The PICO System helps to promote healing progression and shorten time to healing**5,10
- PICO sNPWT was shown to improve the area, depth and volume of lower extremity ulcer wounds***11
- 97.5% of patients report being satisfied or pleased with PICO sNPWT treatment****12
Evidence and case studies
Disclaimer
*n=96; compared to alternative ports.
**For healing progression compared to baseline trajectory and for healing compared with predictions for standard care; n=52 wounds. On responding to stalled chronic wounds of 44 weeks mean duration, the PICO system healed 56% of wounds an average of 10 weeks earlier than predicted with standard wound care dressings; n=9.
***Compared to traditional NPWT over a 12-week treatment period for VLUs and DFUs; n=161; ITT analysis.
****n=326.
Citations
- Hurd T. et al. Wounds 2021;33 (suppl 2):S1– S11.
- Kirsner R, et al. Wounds 2020;32(12).
- Saunders C, et al. BJS Open. 2021;0(0):1 - 8.
- Forlee M, et al. Poster presented at: EWMA;9-11 May, 2018; Krakow, Poland.
- Dowsett C, et al. Wounds International. 2017;8(2):52-58.
- Cray A. . Br J Nurs. 2017 Aug 10;26(15):S6-S18.
- Janssen AHJ, et al. J Tissue Viability. 2021 Feb 6.
- Kantar Health market research report, November 2018.
- Carnali M, et al. Acta Vulnologica. Vol 142016:24-39.
- Hampton J. Community Wound Care. 2015:S14-S20.
- Kirsner R, et al. Wound Repair Regen. 2019;27(5):519 - 529.
- Hurd T, et al. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2014;60(3):30-36.