A multicentre cross-sectional survey study on acute wound classification in the emergency department and its interobserver variability

Annually, a vast number of patients visits the emergency department for acute wounds. Many wound classification systems exist, but often these were not originally designed for acute wounds. This study aimed to assess the most frequently used classifications for acute wounds in the Netherlands and the interobserver variability of the Gustilo Anderson wound classification (GAWC) and Red Cross wound classification (RCWC) in acute wounds. This multicentre cross-sectional survey study employed an online oral questionnaire. We contacted emergency physicians from eleven hospitals in the south-eastern part of the Netherlands and identified the currently applied classifications. Participants classified ten fictitious wounds by applying the GAWC and RCWC. Afterwards, they rated the user-friendliness of these classifications. We examined the interobserver variability of both classifications using a Fleiss' kappa analysis, with a subdivision in RCWC grades and types representing wound severity and injured tissue structures. The study included twenty emergency physicians from eight hospitals. Fifty percent of the participants reported using a classification for acute wounds, mostly the GAWC. The interobserver variability of the GAWC (kappa = 0.46; 95% CI 0.44-0.49) and RCWC grades (kappa = 0.56; 95% CI 0.53-0.59) was moderate, and it was good for the RCWC types (kappa = 0.69; 95% CI 0.66-0.73). Participants considered both classifications helpful for acute wound assessment when the emergency physician was less experienced, despite a moderate user-friendliness. The GAWC was only of additional value in wounds with fractures, whereas the RCWC's additional value in acute wound assessment was independent of the presence of a fracture. Emergency physicians are reserved to use a classification for acute wound assessment. The interobserver variability of the GAWC and RCWC in acute wounds is promising, and both classifications are easy to apply. However, their user-friendliness is moderate. It is recommended to apply the GAWC to acute wounds with underlying fractures and the RCWC to major traumatic injuries. Awareness should be raised of existing wound classifications, specifically among less experienced healthcare professionals.

Automated summary

This study aimed to evaluate the most commonly used classifications for acute wounds in the Netherlands and assess the interobserver variability of the Gustilo Anderson wound classification (GAWC) and Red Cross wound classification (RCWC) in acute wounds. The study found that both classifications had moderate interobserver variability and were helpful for acute wound assessment, although their user-friendliness was moderate. It is recommended to apply the GAWC to acute wounds with fractures and the RCWC to major traumatic injuries.