Personal experiences of aggression or violence in the workplace lead to serious consequences for nurses, their patients, patient care and the organisation as a whole. While there is a plethora of research on this topic, no review is available that identifies types of aggression encountered, individuals perceived to be most at risk and coping strategies for victims. The aim of this systematic review was to examine occupational anxiety related to actual aggression in the workplace for nurses. Databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO) were searched, resulting in 1543 titles and abstracts. After removal of duplicates and non-relevant titles, 137 papers were read in full. Physical aggression was found to be most frequent in mental health, nursing homes and emergency departments while verbal aggression was more commonly experienced by general nurses. Nurses exposed to verbal or physical abuse often experienced a negative psychological impact post incident.

The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has brought the effects of device-related pressure ulcers (DRPU) into sharp focus. With the increased use of personal protective equipment (PPE), including face masks, continuous positive airway pressure (CAPP) masks and other devices, the incidence of DRPUs among health professionals and patients alike has risen starkly. As such, the Journal of Wound Care (JWC) consensus document, Device-related pressure ulcers: SECURE prevention, published in February 2020, is more relevant than ever. To help support patients and frontline health professionals, JWC is republishing the consensus in a digital format, along with a new introductory article outlining the DRPU risks posed by PPE and other medical devices used by patients and health professionals during the pandemic, and how the skin damage can be avoided. The aim is to provide frontline staff with a clear, simple strategy on how to prevent the risk of personal skin damage and/or DRPU during the pandemic, as well as point them in the direction of more indepth guidance on long-term strategies for prevention, for both themselves and patients.

The use of atmospheric low‐temperature plasma (AP) on chronic wounds and its effect on microbial bioburden in open wounds has not been explored with a systematic review and meta‐analysis. PRISMA guidelines were followed and PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which compared AP with no AP for the management of open, chronic wounds. The primary outcomes of reduction of bioburden or wound size were included. Meta‐analyses were performed; odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted and pooled in a random effects model.Four RCTs investigated the effect of AP on chronic wound healing. Chronic wounds treated with AP did not show a significant improvement in healing (AP vs control: OR = 1.46; 95% CI = 0.89‐2.38; P = 0.13). Five further RCTs investigated the reduction of bioburden in wounds, but AP demonstrated no significant reduction of bioburden (AP vs control: OR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.45‐1.62; P = 0.63). All nine RCTs recorded the presence of any severe adverse events (SAEs) in the 268 patients studied, with only one unrelated SAE identified in each group (AP vs control: OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.05‐19.96; P = 1.00). Use of AP in wound care is safe, but the retrieved evidence and meta‐analysis show that there is no clinical benefit of AP in chronic open wounds using currently available AP device settings.