PriMera Scientific Surgical Research and Practice (ISSN: 2836-0028)

Research Article

Volume 7 Issue 4

Engineering a Standardized Wound-Care Eco-System to Improve Preparedness and Continuity Across Care Settings: The Neudebri™ Model

Annalyn Garcia*

April 02, 2026

View PDF

Abstract

Background: Clinical outcomes in wound management are strongly influenced by structured preparation and continuity of care. Implementation observations suggest that approximately 75% of wound-care success depends on adequate preparedness, while sustained healing is highly dependent on continuity across transitions of care. Fragmented workflows, inconsistent materials, and variable debridement techniques remain barriers, particularly in outpatient and resource-limited settings.

Objective: To design and evaluate a standardized, low-resource wound-care eco-system capable of operationalizing ≥75% preparedness domains and mitigating ≥95% of high-priority continuity failure modes.

Methods: A preparedness framework was defined using guideline-informed domains: workforce, workflow, tools, safety, documentation, education, and follow-up. Care-continuity gaps across transitions (home/community ↔ outpatient ↔ referral) were mapped using process mapping and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Eco-system components—including a standardized kit, competency-based microtraining, decision-support tools, documentation templates, and referral/tele-follow-up bundles—were mapped against preparedness domains and identified failure modes. Coverage metrics were defined as (1) proportion of preparedness domains operationalized with usable tools/processes and (2) proportion of high-priority failure modes mitigated by at least one eco-system component.

Results: The eco-system operationalized 75% of predefined preparedness domains through standardized workflows, minimal equipment sets, and competency-based training. The continuity bundle directly mitigated 95% of high-priority transition failure modes, particularly those related to follow-up scheduling, escalation criteria, shared documentation, and patient/caregiver instructions. Residual gaps were associated primarily with workforce constraints and referral network limitations.

Conclusion: A structured wound-care eco-system can be engineered to achieve measurable preparedness coverage and high continuity mitigation by design. Reliable tools, standardized materials, and clinical autonomy are critical enablers. Prospective studies are warranted to assess clinical outcomes, economic impact, scalability, and sustainability.

Keywords: wound care systems; debridement; continuity of care; preparedness; health systems design; eco-kit; neuropathic wounds

References

  1. Armstrong DG, Boulton AJM and Bus SA. “Diabetic foot ulcers and their recurrence”. N Engl J Med 376.24 (2017): 2367-2375.
  2. Bus SA., et al. “Guidelines on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update)”. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 36.S1 (2020): e3269.
  3. Schaper NC., et al. “IWGDF Guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease”. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 36.S1 (2020): e3266.
  4. Game F., et al. “IWGDF Guidelines on interventions to enhance healing of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes”. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 36.S1 (2020): e3283.
  5. Atkin L., et al. “Implementing TIMERS: the race against hard-to-heal wounds”. J Wound Care 28.Sup3a (2019): S1-S49.
  6. Leaper DJ., et al. “Extending the TIME concept: what have we learned in the past 10 years?”. Int Wound J 9.Suppl 2 (2012): 1-19.
  7. Wolcott RD, Cox SB and Dowd SE. “Healing and healing rates of chronic wounds in the age of molecular pathogen diagnostics”. Adv Wound Care 1.4 (2012): 181-188.
  8. Edmonds M, Manu C and Vas P. “The current burden of diabetic foot disease”. J Clin Orthop Trauma 17 (2021): 88-93.
  9. Naylor MD., et al. “The importance of transitional care in achieving health reform”. Health Aff (Millwood) 30.4 (2011): 746-754.
  10. Coleman EA and Boult C. “Improving the quality of transitional care for persons with complex care needs”. J Am Geriatr Soc 51.4 (2003): 556-557.
  11. WHO. “Framework on Integrated, People-Centred Health Services”. Geneva: World Health Organization (2016).
  12. Reason J. “Human error: models and management”. BMJ 320.7237 (2000): 768-770.
  13. DeRosier J., et al. “Using health care Failure Mode and Effects Analysis”. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 28.5 (2002): 248-267.
  14. Frykberg RG and Banks J. “Challenges in the treatment of chronic wounds”. Adv Wound Care 4.9 (2015): 560-582.
  15. Schultz GS., et al. “Wound bed preparation: a systematic approach to wound management”. Wound Repair Regen 11.Suppl 1 (2003): S1-S28.
  16. Jeffcoate WJ and Harding KG. “Diabetic foot ulcers”. Lancet 361.9368 (2003): 1545-1551.
  17. Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). Science of improvement: testing changes. Boston, MA: IHI (2020).
  18. Kruse I and Edelman S. “Evaluation and treatment of diabetic foot ulcers”. Clin Diabetes 24.2 (2006): 91-93.