Retrospective cohort analysis reveals healing rates and barriers in chronic wound care for under-resourced populations, suggesting improvements in access and continuity.
Background: Chronic wounds represent a significant health care burden, particularly among under-resourced people, due to limited access to care, social determinants, and untreated comorbidities. These factors contribute to delayed healing, complications, reduced quality of life, and increased costs. Purpose: This study examined the types of chronic wounds, barriers to care, and clinical outcomes among under-resourced individuals treated at a nurse practitioner–led (NP-led) wound care clinic, to inform targeted interventions for improving access and continuity. Methodology: This retrospective cohort study analyzed medical records of 493 patients treated at a NP-led clinic on the west coast between 2020 and 2024, focusing on wound types, care barriers, and clinical outcomes. Results: The most common diagnoses were nonpressure chronic ulcers (17.6%) and pressure injuries (16.6%), with lower extremities as the main location (20.49%). A strong correlation was found between number of appointments and follow-up ( r = 1.0). No significant relationship was seen between referral source and clinic visit status (χ 2 = 2.67, p = .26). Overall, 91.9% of wounds healed, whereas 16.8% of patients experienced persistent wound issues, reflecting barriers such as inaccessibility (17%) and refusal of care (5.7%). Conclusions: NP-led wound clinics are essential for under-resourced populations but face systemic challenges in patient follow-up and engagement. Findings highlight the need for interventions, improved continuity, and strategies addressing health care and social determinants. Implications: Enhancing continuity, fostering patient trust, and addressing social determinants through remote monitoring, community outreach, and tailored approaches are vital to optimize outcomes for under-resourced individuals with chronic wounds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Şengül et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: