Optimising wound monitoring: Can digital tools improve healing outcomes and clinic efficiency.

Abstract

Chronic wounds present significant challenges for patients and nursing care teams worldwide. Digital health tools offer potential for more standardised and efficient nursing care pathways but require further rigorous evaluation. This retrospective matched cohort study aimed to compare the impacts of a digital tracking application for wound documentation versus traditional manual nursing assessments. Data from 5236 patients with various wound types were analysed. Propensity score matching balanced groups, and bivariate tests, correlation analyses, linear regression, and Hayes' Process Macro Model 15 were utilised for a mediation-moderation model. Digital wound tracking was associated with significantly shorter healing durations (15 vs. 35 days) and fewer clinic nursing visits (3 vs. 5.8 visits) compared to standard nursing monitoring. Digital tracking demonstrated improved wound size reduction over time. Laboratory values tested did not consistently predict healing outcomes. Digital tracking exhibited moderate negative correlations with the total number of nursing visits. Regression analysis identified wound complexity, hospitalizations, and initial wound size as clinical predictors for more nursing visits in patients with diabetes mellitus (p < .01). Digital tracking significantly reduced the number of associated nursing visits for patients with peripheral vascular disease. These findings suggest that digital wound management may streamline nursing care and provide advantages, particularly for comorbid populations facing treatment burdens. This study adhered to STROBE guidelines in reporting this observational research. By streamlining documentation and potentially shortening healing times, digital wound tracking could help optimise nursing resources, enhance wound care standards, and improve patient experiences. This supports further exploration of digital health innovations to advance evidence-based nursing practice. This study involved retrospective analysis of existing patient records and did not directly include patients or the public in the design, conduct, or reporting of the research.