Thursday, 31 May 2007
Eusol - Tool of the Devil?
I saw a nurse sacked about eight years ago for arguing with a surgeon about using Eusol. She knew it was 'bad' but had no idea what was bad about it. BS-ing a consultant who's used it for 20 years was a little unwise; especially in front of a patient.
I'm pretty sure the army still uses it, though my info may be 5 years out of date - but there's plenty of arguments in favour of using it in certain circumstances.
Never forget that Eusol *works* - and does not necessarily do any harm. It has largely diasappeared from hospital usage not because it is 'bad' - but because many other things are better.
There's a great article from Issue 1 of the Journal of Wound Care (1992) which has some 100 references; the most thorough review I've ever seen (I nearly got sacked for publishing it). There's been little research of note since.
"Rituals In Nursing" tritely exposed it's misuse, but history has simply repeated itself in reverse - now we 'don't use it' for no good reason, equally ritualistic, and devoid of rationale.
Those days, you could argue (and we did); you shouldn't use Eusol until you've read research that justifies the risk *in your circumstances*.
Today, you could argue just as powerfully, you shouldn't dismiss it, unless you've read the relevant reseach.
They dissed leeches; they dissed honey, they dissed maggots ... all vital parts of modern wound care, if you read the research.
They also started a NEW RITUAL, of cleaning wounds with saline alone, and people now do that, regardless of the type of wound, regardless of the local skin contaminants, regardless of MRSA "because research says so".
And you could bet £1000 they haven't read the research ... Because I happen to know that research *Does NOT* say so!! [Except for certain wound types in certain conditions] ¶ 19:46
I'm pretty sure the army still uses it, though my info may be 5 years out of date - but there's plenty of arguments in favour of using it in certain circumstances.
Never forget that Eusol *works* - and does not necessarily do any harm. It has largely diasappeared from hospital usage not because it is 'bad' - but because many other things are better.
There's a great article from Issue 1 of the Journal of Wound Care (1992) which has some 100 references; the most thorough review I've ever seen (I nearly got sacked for publishing it). There's been little research of note since.
"Rituals In Nursing" tritely exposed it's misuse, but history has simply repeated itself in reverse - now we 'don't use it' for no good reason, equally ritualistic, and devoid of rationale.
Those days, you could argue (and we did); you shouldn't use Eusol until you've read research that justifies the risk *in your circumstances*.
Today, you could argue just as powerfully, you shouldn't dismiss it, unless you've read the relevant reseach.
They dissed leeches; they dissed honey, they dissed maggots ... all vital parts of modern wound care, if you read the research.
They also started a NEW RITUAL, of cleaning wounds with saline alone, and people now do that, regardless of the type of wound, regardless of the local skin contaminants, regardless of MRSA "because research says so".
And you could bet £1000 they haven't read the research ... Because I happen to know that research *Does NOT* say so!! [Except for certain wound types in certain conditions] ¶ 19:46
