This is the first of a 2-part series focusing on the importance of proper dressing removal. Skin injury happens across all care settings and among all age groups.¹ When proper technique for the application and/or removal of adhesive products is not used, tissue damage can occur, which not only impacts patient safety and quality of life, but also increases healthcare costs.¹

Safe and healthy wound and skin care can be especially challenging for individuals in the oncology setting when receiving chemotherapy, radiation, biotherapy, and other forms of cancer treatment.^1,2 These treatments appropriately target dividing cells, which include skin cells. Cancer treatment can “thin” the skin, making it extremely fragile.² The repeated application and removal of ports and peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line dressings in oncology patients can result in pain, inflammation, skin tears, and increased risk of infection.¹

Maintaining skin health and integrity in this already compromised patient population is exceedingly important. Use of an adhesive remover with ports, PICC lines, and their associated dressings can help reduce the risks of skin damage. The top 3 reasons to use an adhesive remover in oncology patients are:

 

1. Medical adhesive-related skin injury (MARSI) prevention/infection protection Medical adhesive removers are recommended for MARSI prevention by the 2013 MARSI consensus panel. Additionally, medical adhesive removers help reduce the risk of infection that could result from skin tears¹ Remember, vascular catheter-associated infections (such as central line-associated infections, or CLABSIs) are no longer reimbursed by CMS^1,3
2. Patient safety When adhesive products are properly applied and removed, this may help improve patient safety and quality of life¹
3. Cost containment Their use can help decrease healthcare costs; the average cost of treating a skin tear is $21.96 per patient per incident¹

Prevent skin damage from repeated application and removal of vascular access dressings with Detachol® Adhesive Remover. Detachol® can play a significant role in assuring clinicians that they are doing everything possible to reduce the risks to patients and costs to healthcare providers that may result from the improper removal of tapes, dressings, and devices.
Using Detachol®:

• Reduces the risk of MARSI1
• Completely removes adhesive residue in which bacteria can breed ^4,5
• Provides a non-irritating, alcohol/acetone-free formulation
• Offers CHG compatibility⁶

For more information about Detachol®, please contact your sales consultant or Eloquest Healthcare®, Inc., call 1-877-433-7626 or visit www.eloquesthealthcare.com.

Minimizing infection risk is an essential part of optimizing “The Triple Aim” of the Affordable Care Act. Eloquest Healthcare is committed to providing solutions that can help you reduce risk of conditions like a CAUTI, CLABSI, or SSI.

Join us next time for the second part of the series, “Importance of Proper Dressing Removal: Containing Costs and Risks With Catheter Line Migration.”

References

1. McNichol L, Lund C, Rosen T, et al. Medical adhesives and patient safety: state of the science. Consensus statements for the assessment, prevention, and treatment of adhesive-related skin injuries. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2013;40:365-80.
2. Woodward L. Caring for the oncology patient’s skin. Medline University. Web. https://www.medlineuniversity.com. Accessed October 19, 2017.
3. LeBlanc K, Baranoski S. Skin Tears: State of the science: consensus statements for the prevention, prediction, assessment, and treatment of skin tears. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2011;24(9 suppl):2-15.
4. Berkowitz DM, Lee W-S, Pazin GJ, et al. Adhesive tape: potential source of nosocomial bacteria. Appl Microbiol. 1974;28:651-54
5. Redelmeier DA, Livesley NJ. Adhesive tape and intravascular-catheter-associated infections. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:373-5.
6. Ryder M, Duley C. Evaluation of compatibility of a gum mastic liquid adhesive and liquid adhesive remover with an alcoholic chlorhexidine gluconate skin preparation. J Infus Nurs. 2017;40(4):245-52.