Pressure ulcers: diagnostics and interventions aimed at wound-related complaints: a review of the literature

Aims and objectives. To describe the current scientific evidence in the field of diagnostics and treatment of pain, malodour and exudate from pressure ulcers and to give recommendations for practice, based on these findings. Background. Patients with pressure ulcers are confronted with symptoms of chronic wounds and impaired wound healing. Assessment and treatment of these symptoms have received very little attention. Design. Systematic literature review. Methods. Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane, were searched for studies on pain, malodour and exudate in patients with pressure ulcers. Results. The McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Visual Analogue Scale and the Faces Rating Scale are useful instruments to assess pressure ulcer related pain. Strong evidence was found to support a positive effect of (dia)morphine. Some evidence was found to support a positive effect of benzydamine gel and Eutectic Mixture of Local Anaesthetic‐cream. Wound malodour is subjectively assessed. In a laboratory study, it is proved that activated charcoal is capable of absorbing gas molecules causing malodour. At present, no studies are available on the odour‐absorbing capacity of activated charcoal dressings in pressure ulcer patients. Exudate is a symptom of impaired wound healing. The Pressure Sore Status Tool is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the wound healing process. There is a possible indication that hydrocolloid positively influences healing time because the absorption of exudates is more effective. Conclusion. Little sound research has been performed on wound‐related complaints in patients with pressure ulcers. Nevertheless several recommendations could be made on the present state of the art. Relevance to clinical pratice. Regarding pressure ulcer related pain, this review supports the intervention of local pain relieve in patients with pressure ulcers. Regarding pressure ulcer related odour and exudates, this study identifies the gaps in evidence and research.