840x840-PX-T.I.M.E.CDST-Global.png

Systematic consistency in wound care practice

Currently, in chronic wound care:

  • 24% of patients live with a chronic wound for at least 6 months3
  • Increasingly, generalist nurses are treating complex wounds with limited training2
  • Specialist team referral and treatment changes vary from 0 days to over 2 months4

T.I.M.E. CDST offers holistic wound and patient assessment, facilitating multidisciplinary team involvement to promote systematic consistency and confidence for even non-specialist clinicians.

TIME Clinical Decision Support Tool

Evolving the T.I.M.E. concept

The T.I.M.E. concept began in 2003 with a group of wound management experts who sought a rational, systematic approach to guide wound bed preparation and address non-healing wounds by identifying and removing barriers to healing.7

Seeking a wider, multi-disciplinary and holistic approach that reviewed all patient circumstances, the T.I.M.E. CDST considered other developments, such as:6-12

  • The need for repetitive wound cleansing, maintenance and debridement
  • Bacterial continuum, biofilm concepts and antibiotics resistance
  • Moisture balance, advanced dressings for exudate management and novel treatment modalities for epithelial advancement

The result is a framework that’s easy to implement, teach and use for consistent wound assessment and evidence-based decision-making.4-12

TIME CDST
Download T.I.M.E. CDST

Implementing and using T.I.M.E. CDST

Achieve simplification and systematic consistency in practice by implementing the five-step framework:8-11

Disclaimers

The products used in the T.I.M.E. clinical decision support tool may vary in different markets. Not all products referred to may be approved for use or available in all markets. Please consult your local Smith+Nephew representative for further details on products available in your market.

Intended for healthcare professionals outside of the US only.

Citations
  1. Guest et al. JWC. 2017 26(6): 292-303.
  2. Guest JF, et al. BMJ Open 2020;10:e045253. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045253.
  3. Rossington A, et al. Wounds International. 2018;9(4):58-62.
  4. Ousey K, et al. Wounds International. 2018;9(4):58-62.
  5. World Union of Wound Healing Societies. Consensus document. Strategies to reduce practice variation in wound assessment and management: The T.I.M.E. Clinical Decision Support Tool. Available. https://www.wuwhs.com/web/index.php?option=comcontent&view=article&id=51. Accessed March 2020.
  6. Moore Z, et al. J Wound Care. 2019;28(3):154-161.
  7. Schultz GS, et al. Wound Rep Reg 2003; 11:1-28.
  8. Swanson T, et al. Wounds International. 2019;10(2):38–47.
  9. Jelnes R, et al.Wounds International. 2019;10(3):40–44.
  10. Woo K. et al. Wounds International. 2019;10(2):38–47.
  11. Walters S, et al. Wounds International. 2019;10(4):32-39.
  12. Blackburn J, et al. Wounds International. 2019;10(4):40-49.
  13. International consensus. Optimising wellbeing in people living with a wound. An expert working group review. London: Wounds International, 2012.
  14. Leaper DJ, et al. Int Wound J. 2012; 9 (Suppl 2):1-19.
  15. European Wound Management Association (EWMA). Position Document: Wound Bed Preparation in Practice. London: MEP Ltd, 2004.

Title

Text