Chronic wounds arise from interruption of normal healing due to many potential pathophysiological factors. Monitoring these multivariate factors can provide personalized diagnostic information for wound management, but current sensing technologies use complex laboratory tests or track a limited number of wound parameters. We report a flexible biosensing platform for multiplexed profiling of the wound microenvironment, inflammation, and infection state at the point of care. This platform integrates a sensor array for measuring inflammatory mediators [tumor necrosis factor–α, interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8, and transforming growth factor–β1], microbial burden (Staphylococcus aureus), and physicochemical parameters (temperature and pH) with a microfluidic wound exudate collector and flexible electronics for wireless, smartphone-based data readout. We demonstrate in situ multiplexed monitoring in a mouse wound model and also profile wound exudates from patients with venous leg ulcers. This technology may facilitate more timely and personalized wound management to improve chronic wound healing outcomes.

Nurses are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) to improve client and system outcomes. Despite an improved awareness about EIDM, there is a lack of use of research evidence and understanding about the effectiveness of interventions to promote EIDM. This project aimed to discover if knowledge translation (KT) interventions directed to nurses in tertiary care are effective for improving EIDM knowledge, skills, behaviours, and, as a result, client outcomes. It also sought to understand contextual factors that affect the impact of such interventions. A systematic review funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (PROSPERO registration: CRD42013003319) was conducted. Included studies examined the implementation of any KT intervention involving nurses in tertiary care to promote EIDM knowledge, skills, behaviours, and client outcomes or studies that examined contextual factors. Study designs included systematic reviews, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies. The search included electronic databases and manual searching of published and unpublished literature to November 2012; key databases included MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Excerpta Medica (EMBASE). Two reviewers independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. Studies with quantitative data determined to be clinically homogeneous were synthesized using meta-analytic methods. Studies with quantitative data not appropriate for meta-analysis were synthesized narratively by outcome. Studies with qualitative data were synthesized by theme. Of the 44,648 citations screened, 30 citations met the inclusion criteria (18 quantitative, 10 qualitative, and 2 mixed methods studies). The quality of studies with quantitative data ranged from very low to high, and quality criteria was generally met for studies with qualitative data. No studies evaluated the impact on knowledge and skills; they primarily investigated the effectiveness of multifaceted KT strategies for promoting EIDM behaviours and improving client outcomes. Almost all studies included an educational component. A meta-analysis of two studies determined that a multifaceted intervention (educational meetings and use of a mentor) did not increase engagement in a range of EIDM behaviours [mean difference 2.7, 95 % CI (−1.7 to 7.1), I2 = 0 %]. Among the remaining studies, no definitive conclusions could be made about the relative effectiveness of the KT interventions due to variation of interventions and outcomes, as well as study limitations. Findings from studies with qualitative data identified the organizational, individual, and interpersonal factors, as well as characteristics of the innovation, that influence the success of implementation. KT interventions are being implemented and evaluated on nurses’ behaviour and client outcomes. This systematic review may inform the selection of KT interventions and outcomes among nurses in tertiary care and decisions about further research.

Aim: One of the greatest challenges in responding to the COVID‐19 pandemic is preventing staff exposure and infection by ensuring consistent and effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE). This study explored health care workers' experience of prolonged PPE use in clinical practice settings and their concerns regarding PPE supply, effectiveness and training needs.Design: A descriptive cross‐sectional design was adopted in this study.Methods: Health care workers (N = 592) from an acute care hospital completed an online survey from July to September 2020 assessing: (i) usage frequencies, side effects and interference with patient care; and (ii) perceptions of access to PPE, likelihood of exposure to infection and adequacy of PPE training.Results: PPE‐related side effects were reported by 319 (53.8%) participants, the majority being nurses (88.4%) and those working in high‐risk areas such as the emergency department (39.5%), respiratory wards (acute 22.3% and non‐acute 23.8%) and COVID‐19 isolation ward (13.8%). The average time wearing PPE per shift was 6.8 h (SD0.39). The most commonly reported symptoms were from donning N95 masks and included: pressure injuries (45.5%), mask‐induced acne (40.4%) and burning/pain (24.5%). Some 31.3% expressed that PPE‐related side effects had negatively affected their work. The odds of having PPE‐associated side effects was higher in women (OR 2.10, 95% CI [1.29–03.42],p = .003) and those working in high‐risk wards (OR 3.12, 95% CI [2.17–4.60],p < .001]. Most (90.1%) agreed that PPE supplies were readily available, sufficient for all (86.1%) and there was sufficient training in correct PPE use (93.6%). Only 13.7% of participants reported being ‘highly confident’ of overall PPE protection.Conclusions: Prevention and management of PPE‐related adverse effects is vital to: preserve the integrity of PPE, improve adherence and minimize viral transmission.Impact: The high incidence of PPE‐associated pressure injuries and perception that PPE use can interfere with clinical care should inform future development of PPE products, and strategies to better equip health care workers to prevent and manage PPE‐related side effects.