Dressing Material For Postoperative Wound Healing Sample

It effectively concluded that hydrofibre dressing and polyurethane film material is better in terms of its effects over wound of patients rather than conventional wound pad and fixation tap. Under the study, results were attained through quantitative research which made the findings validate and authentic.

It also effectively presented that status of hospitals in terms of their guidelines for dressing, which reflect the loophole of hospital management.So, it can be said that this study effectively achieved its results of measuring impact of dressing material on wound.

Methodology

Randomized clinical trial was used as research methodology in this research. In this study, both men and women were chosen as participants for data collection. These patients were from Orton Orthopaedic Hospital. Harle, Korhonen, Kettunen and Seitsalo (2005) stated that patients were categorized into two separate groups namely A and B.

In group a, hydrofibre dressing and polyurethane film was used. On the other hand, in group b, conventional wound pad and fixation tap was used wound material. Under this study, economical and clinical effects of two dressing materials on patients undergone hip replacement surgery were measured. It can be said that this methodology was appropriate and fit to the context of research that is clinical.

Sample

In this research study, sample size was 100 successive patients, who were selected through convenience sampling (Harle, Korhonen, Kettunen and Seitsalo, 2005). Convenience is the form of non probability sampling that selects people, who are accessible and within the proximity of the researcher (Black, 2011).

The patients were grouped into group A and group B for randomized trial. The patients were asked to fill the evaluation form. Each patients of group A and B were sent evaluation and follow up form to collect data over the effects of dressing material.

Results

Results were effectively presented in this research (Hulley, 2007). As per the results, no significant statistical differences between two dressing materials were found in the research. It is observed in the results that there was no requirement of changing dressing material by 45% patients of group A.

In contrast to this, about 6% of group b patient showed no requirement of change in their dressing material after operation. It is also evaluated in the results that in clinical terms, hydrofibre dressing material proved better for skin status as compared to conventional dressing material.

Cost of dressing material of group A proved higher (€14.70) in comparison of group B (€8.70). It is also observed in the results that at initial level, several skins related problems were marked in group A, but after the change of dressing, these problems were cured.

In addition, changes of dressing on skin were also effectively presented in tabular format in the results of this research that reflect the effectiveness of data presentation. As per these results, it is explored that changes at first dressing and changes after first dressing were measured between group A and group B respectively

. Harle, Korhonen, Kettunen and Seitsalo (2005) found that an around 5% patients belong to group A were reported to have skin injury in terms of blisters after the first change of dressing material. In contrast, in group b, blisters were reported among 15% patients that were higher than their counterparts.

Discussion

In this section of research study, it can be stated that consistency with results and measures was effectively performed (Machin and Fayers, 2010). It can be interpreted that as like of results, it is stated that patients of a group also faced several skins related issues initially, but after the change of dressing, these issues were resolved.

In addition, it is also discussed that dressing material used for group A was more effective as compared to the dressing material used for group b. In contrast, it is also analyzed that cost of dressing material used for group A is higher than conventional dressing material used for group B.

As per the study, it is also observed that benefits of hydrofibre dressing material were also discussed by stating that cost of this material can be compensated. It is also discussed that use of hydrofibre reduces the cost required for treating the skin injury. Similarly, it is also explained that by using hydrofibre on wound, expenses of changing dressing material can be also avoided.
Along with this, it also answered the research question effectively.

Under this, effects on wound of patients belong to both groups were effectively discussed in detail. It can be interpreted from this section that after changing the dressing material to conventional dressing material for group A, skin injury were reported by the patients. Harle, Korhonen, Kettunen and Seitsalo (2005) explored that conventional dressing material is not good for wound healing like, hydrofibre dressing material.

It can be stated that use of hydrofibre dressing material reduced the issues in terms of mechanical skin injury and need of changing the dressing material on frequent basis. It is also stated in the clinical guidelines of NMC that hydorfibre is good dressing material (Magill, Yeates and Longley, February 2010).  Furthermore, it is also found that in the wound healing follow up, most of patients reported skin related injury.

It is also presented that dressing material were not alone responsible for skin injury, as patients and other related factors are also responsible for skin irritation and injuries. At the same time, the loophole of this research study is also discussed, which stated that causes or factors responsible for skin injury were not studied.

So, it can be stated that this is the main weakness of the study, as the results could have been developed in more validate way, if these factors were explored in the research.

In discussion, some weak areas of hospital authorities were also found and discussed. Under these areas, it is claimed that hospitals do had any guidelines to treat skin associated injuries. On the other hand, health institutions like NICE have set their guidelines effectively to avoid any lacking (Minimally invasive total hip replacement, 2012).

References

1. Black, K. (2011). Business Statistics: For Contemporary Decision Making. (7th ed). USA: John Wiley & Sons.
2. Furberg, B. & Furberg, C. (2007). Evaluating Clinical Research: All That Glitters Is Not Gold. (2nd ed).  Springer.
3. Gallin, J.I. & Ognibene, F.P. (2007).  Principles and Practice of Clinical Research. (2nd ed). MA, USA: Academic Press.
4. Harle RN, S. Korhonen RN, A, Kettunen PT, J.A. & Seitsalo MD, S. A. (2005). Randomised clinical trial of two different wound dressing materials for hip replacement patients. Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing, 9 (2005), 205–210.
5. Hulley, S.B.  (2007). Designing Clinical Research, Part 457. (3rd ed). USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

UPTO50%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit