The conference season continues but do we know more about pressure ulcers?

No sooner had the dust settled after the highly successful EPUAP conference in Berlin many delegates found themselves in a rather wet Pisa attending the annual conference of the European Tissue Repair Society. While this highly scientific conference was not focused upon pressure ulcers many familiar faces from Berlin were in attendance. After Pisa the season turns back to the UK with the 25th Anniversary symposium of the Tissue Viability Society on October 26th followed by the main Wounds UK event held in Harrogate in November. Perhaps the formal conference season ends after Harrogate but the respite is brief for the US National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel holds its conference in San Antonio, Texas in early February 2007.

That the conference season is long and getting longer and the range of pressure ulcer related events gets wider each year is obvious. Also obvious are the plethora of publications both scientific and clinical dedicated in part (or in total) to pressure ulcers and the wide variety of associations which consider pressure ulcers among other wound types. However does the volume of primary research into the pathophysiology, prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers deserve such a wide range of outlets? The answer to this question is undoubtedly no which means that material is either recycled between conferences and journals or we encounter a flood of review papers. Focusing upon the UK alone we have too many conferences, too many associations and little research. Some years ago the relative success of the wound care industry resulted in appropriate levels of support for several associations and publications but belts have been tightened in industry and now hard choices have to be made between competing groups and titles. This situation cannot last without one or other association or journal dying for lack of support. How should we move forward? To an outsider the answer might appear to be obvious - all UK associations and publications to come together to form a very strong single voice for health professionals, their patients and the general public. Such a new body rising like a phoenix from the groups that have existed until now may be the only way to safeguard an independent voice for wound care in this country. Let me know if you agree with this opinion?

Michael Clark
Editor