T.I.M.E. 臨床判断サポートツール(CDST) Clinical decision support tool (CDST)
Chronic wound prevalence is growing, with clinicians facing increased expectations and more patients treated by non-specialists. When inconsistency and limited specialist involvement may delay healing, there’s a need to structure and simplify clinical practice1-3
Systematic consistency in wound care practice
Currently, in current chronic wound care:
- 24% of patients live with a chronic wound for at least 6 months3
- Increasingly, generalist nurses are treating complex wounds with limited training2
- Specialist team referral and treatment changes vary from 0 days to over 2 months4
T.I.M.E. CDST offers holistic wound and patient assessment, facilitating multidisciplinary team involvement to promote systematic consistency and confidence for even non-specialist clinicians.
Evolving the T.I.M.E. concept
The T.I.M.E. concept began in 2003 with a group of wound management experts who sought a rational, systematic approach to guide wound bed preparation and address non-healing wounds by identifying and removing barriers to healing.7
Seeking a wider, multi-disciplinary and holistic approach that reviewed all patient circumstances, the T.I.M.E. CDST considered other developments, such as:6-12
- The need for repetitive wound cleansing, maintenance and debridement
- Bacterial continuum, biofilm concepts and antibiotics resistance
- Moisture balance, advanced dressings for exudate management and novel treatment modalities for epithelial advancement
The result is a framework that’s easy to implement, teach and use for consistent wound assessment and evidence-based decision-making.4-12
Implementing and using T.I.M.E. CDST
Evidence and case studies
Clinical experts continue to analyse the contribution of T.I.M.E. CDST in building systematic consistency and confidence in clinical practice.
Related technologies
Disclaimers
"T.I.M.Eの臨床判断サポートツールに使用される製品は、市場ごとに異なる場合があります。引用したすべての製品がすべての市場で使用を承認され、利用できるとは限りません。各地域で市販されている製品の詳細については、最寄りのSmith+Nephew営業担当者にお尋ねください。
米国外の医療専門家を対象としています。
Citations
- Guest et al. JWC. 2017 26(6): 292-303.
- Guest JF, et al. BMJ Open 2020;10:e045253. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045253.
- Rossington A, et al. Wounds International. 2018;9(4):58-62.
- Ousey K, et al. Wounds International. 2018;9(4):58-62.
- World Union of Wound Healing Societies. Consensus document. Strategies to reduce practice variation in wound assessment and management: The T.I.M.E. Clinical Decision Support Tool. Available. https://www.wuwhs.com/web/index.php?option=comcontent&view=article&id=51. Accessed March 2020.
- Moore Z, et al. J Wound Care. 2019;28(3):154-161.
- Schultz GS, et al. Wound Rep Reg 2003; 11:1-28.
- Swanson T, et al. Wounds International. 2019;10(2):38–47.
- Jelnes R, et al.Wounds International. 2019;10(3):40–44.
- Woo K. et al. Wounds International. 2019;10(2):38–47.
- Walters S, et al. Wounds International. 2019;10(4):32-39.
- Blackburn J, et al. Wounds International. 2019;10(4):40-49.
- International consensus. Optimising wellbeing in people living with a wound. An expert working group review. London: Wounds International, 2012.
- Leaper DJ, et al. Int Wound J. 2012; 9 (Suppl 2):1-19.
- European Wound Management Association (EWMA). Position Document: Wound Bed Preparation in Practice. London: MEP Ltd, 2004.