14.3 Interprofessional Team Roles & Quality Improvement

Interprofessional Team Roles & Quality Improvement

Chronic wound management is inherently complex, driven by multifactorial etiologies including metabolic dysregulation, vascular insufficiency, biomechanical stress, infection, and tissue hypoxia. No single healthcare profession possesses the complete scope or skillset required to independently resolve complex recalcitrant wounds. Achieving optimal healing outcomes, reducing major amputation rates, and preventing hospital-acquired complications requires a highly coordinated, interprofessional wound care team integrated with a robust clinical Quality Improvement (QI) program.

---

Interprofessional Team Dynamics & Core Disciplines

An effective interprofessional wound care team operates under a shared decision-making model where clinical expertise from diverse healthcare disciplines is combined to address systemic, local, and functional barriers to healing.

---

Quality Improvement (QI) Metrics & Surveillance

Quality improvement programs in wound care aim to reduce hospital-acquired skin injuries, standardize evidence-based practices, and measure clinical treatment efficacy across patient populations.

1. Pressure Injury Incidence vs. Prevalence Rates

Accurate calculation of epidemiological metrics is mandatory for institutional QI and national safety reporting (e.g., NDNQI - National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators).

• Prevalence Rate: Measures the total proportion of patients with pressure injuries within a specified facility or unit at a single point in time (cross-sectional snapshot). $\text{Prevalence (\%)} = \left( \frac{\text{Number of patients with } \ge 1 \text{ pressure injury at survey time}}{\text{Total number of patients surveyed at that time}} \right) \times 100$
  • Facility-Acquired Prevalence: Excludes pressure injuries documented as present on admission (POA).
• Incidence Rate: Measures the rate of new pressure injuries developing over a specific time period among at-risk patients who were free of pressure injuries at admission. $\text{Incidence (\%)} = \left( \frac{\text{Number of patients developing new pressure injuries during hospital stay}}{\text{Total number of at-risk patients admitted during period}} \right) \times 100$

2. Monitoring Healing Trajectories: The PUSH Tool

The Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH tool), developed by the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP), provides a validated, quick quantitative metric to monitor pressure injury progress over time. The PUSH tool evaluates three parameters:

1. Surface Area ($cm^2$): Measured length x width, assigned a score from 0 (0 $cm^2$) to 10 (> 24 $cm^2$).
2. Exudate Amount: Rated as None (0), Light (1), Moderate (2), or Heavy (3).
3. Tissue Type: Rated as Closed/Epithelialized (0), Granulation tissue (1), Slough (2), or Necrotic tissue/Eschar (3).

• Total PUSH Score: Ranges from 0 to 17. A decreasing score over weekly assessments indicates healing; a stagnant or increasing score signals wound deterioration and mandates care plan revision.

---

Root Cause Analysis (RCA) for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries (HAPI)

When a stage 3, stage 4, unstageable, or Deep Tissue Pressure Injury (DTPI) develops during a hospital admission, institutional QI protocols require conducting a formal Root Cause Analysis (RCA). A HAPI is considered a preventable hospital adverse event and a non-reimbursable "Never Event" under CMS policy.

RCA Methodologies

• The 5 Whys: Interrogating an incident by asking "Why?" sequentially five times to move beyond surface-level human error and uncover systemic process breakdowns.
  • Example: Why did the patient develop a stage 3 sacral injury? $\rightarrow$ Patient was not turned every 2 hours. $\rightarrow$ Why? Nursing staff was short-staffed. $\rightarrow$ Why? High acuity load without reassignment. $\rightarrow$ Why? Turn-team protocol was not integrated into electronic health record (EHR) task alerts.
• Ishikawa (Fishbone) Diagram: Categorizing root causes into systemic domains: Equipment (lack of specialty support surfaces), Process (delayed Braden risk scoring), People (inadequate nursing turning education), Environment (high workload acuteness), and Communication (lack of shift handoff reporting).

---

Integrating Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines

High-performing wound care organizations embed international evidence-based guidelines directly into clinical pathways, EHR order sets, and staff competencies:

• NPIAP / EPUAP / PPPIA Pressure Injury Guidelines: Establishes standards for pressure injury risk assessment (Braden scale $\le 18$ triggering intervention), microclimate management, active support surface allocation (reactive vs. active powered air-fluidized surfaces), and repositioning regimens.
• WOCN Society Clinical Guidelines: Provides evidence-based recommendations for managing venous leg ulcers, arterial wounds, diabetic foot injuries, and incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD).
• IWGDF Guidelines (International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot): Mandates off-loading as first-line therapy for neuropathic plantar DFUs (Total Contact Casting), routine monofilament sensory testing, peripheral arterial disease screening, and rapid surgical triage for diabetic foot infections.