Table 8.

Examination of negative comments for dressing‐related adverse events^*

Wound type	Wound duration (months)	Age of patient (years)	Other details	Final wound assessment	Clinician comment
Other (leg)	6	82	Judged infected; moderate exudate	Deteriorated	No improvement in wound (see Table 7, row 2)
Arterial (leg)	24	70	Suspected biofilm; moderate exudate	Same	No noticeable difference following the evaluation
VLU (stage II)	12	†	Judged infected; four signs + suspected biofilm of 100% coverage; high exudate	Same	Stopped using after 5 weeks as no change. Wound remained static, size and wound bed did not change
Mixed (leg)	240	86	Not infected; moderate exudate	Same	No improvement to wound bed after 2–3 weeks
Arterial (leg)	84	†	Not infected; high exudate	Deteriorated	Deterioration could be due to clinical comorbidities, rather than the dressing. Dressing discontinued (see Table 7, row 3)
Mixed (leg)	2	†	Painful; sloughy wound bed	Improved	Although this ulcer is smaller with less slough, it is still painful and not healed
PU (sacrum)	30	60	Purulent exudate; suspected biofilm	Improved (skin deteriorated)	Wound was static until NPWT dressing applied
PU (sacrum)	†	75	Moderate exudate; 1·5 × 1 × 3·0 cm deep	Same	Wound bed cannot be seen, so improvements cannot be seen. Dressing not suitable for this wound
Cyst	10	45	Three signs of infection + suspected biofilm of 100% coverage	Deteriorated	Initially improvement noted. Wound then deteriorated to original size (see Table 7, row 4)

^*Language is taken from evaluation forms verbatim.

^†Information not given.