OWM People: Who Are You?

  Twice a year, Ostomy Wound Management conducts an ad study to ascertain/document readership, assess how well ads are recalled, and determine what we are doing right (and wrong) editorially. In the interest of camaraderie and to acquaint you with reader background and preferences, I have extracted some of the results from the February 2008 survey. See how well your credentials and job titles fit with your fellow OWM readers. Ponder some of the questions raised. Ask yourself how you can enhance the information on wound, ostomy, and continence with regard to suggestions for articles – eg, submit a literature review, write up a case study, share your research, tell us about an interesting colleague. Plus, please consider the value of participating in the next survey to enhance our vision and mission of your premier wound, ostomy, continence care journal.   Readership. The majority of readers describe themselves as WOCN/ET nurses and “other” (as opposed to the provided choices: Director of Nursing, Nurse Practitioner, Clinical Nurse Specialist, Physical Therapist, and Infection Control Practitioner). I can assume that many of you “others” are podiatrists because many of our authors are DPMs and many of our articles address lower leg/foot issues. But I am curious about the other others. Please step forward and identify yourselves. What are your titles? Are you a medical doctor, nurses’ aid, or student interested in or providing wound, ostomy, or continence care? A vascular surgeon concerned with postoperative healing? A patient with chronic wounds seeking additional information? Your responses can help us set the tone and educational rigor of the contents. Right now, we believe we offer a good mix of the probing and the practical. We accept that not all articles will serve the needs of all readers; however, we strive to have a little something for everyone, dictated only by your manuscript submissions and what topics you say are important for us to pursue.

  Setting. The responses to the survey with regard to setting surprised me. Approximately half of the survey respondents practice in a hospital setting. That statistic is somewhat disconcerting when considering that OWM focuses most often on chronic conditions. Does this mean people are returning to hospitals to address complications? Is this number in flux with the rise of separate wound care centers (19% say that is their practice setting)? Only 20% of you work in nursing homes, a setting known to have a high rate of chronic wounds. Do we have enough staff in these facilities to address the wound and skin care issues of the growing population of elderly? The 14% of you in private practice are to be applauded for your entrepreneurial attitude and stamina, particularly in the current healthcare climate – do you feel set apart from peers in more institutional settings?

  Reading time. Almost half of the survey respondents say they spend 30 minutes to an hour with OWM and another 30% take up to 2 hours. I interpret that to mean you are more than just glancing at each issue. Something is holding your attention. Sometimes you may find an article on a condition or situation – rare or otherwise – relevant to one of your patients. Sometimes you need a quick tip or practice pearl. Or maybe you need to know the latest information on approaches to pain. From the growing number of requests for PDFs of our articles, original research as well as reviews, I know you are using in your research and disseminating what you learn in practice. Plus, according to the survey, while 32% of you keep your cherished copy of OWM to yourself, 68% share your issue with at least one other person, 87% discuss articles with colleagues, supervisors, or persons in other departments, and 65% share articles by offering a tear sheet, photocopy, or the entire issue. More than half of you seek additional information from advertisers, indicating your interest in the products that make publication possible. Keep up your pursuit of knowledge and thank you for turning to OWM with your questions.

  Usefulness. Being my father’s daughter, I am concerned that up to 5% of our readers find no use for OWM. I need to keep in mind that means more than 95% of our readers say our journal is at least somewhat useful, that almost half of you find our features very useful, and more than half of you think our new “Pearls for Practice” column (a combined effort of readership and sponsorship) is very useful. If you enjoy this column, please consider contributing your Pearl. If your Pearl is published, you are awarded either cash honoraria or a copy of Chronic Wound Care IV.

  Of the three leading wound care journals, 88% of you read OWM regularly, 24% more than our next leading competitor. Supplements are at least somewhat, if not very, useful to 96% of respondents. For this we are grateful to our authors, most of whom are practicing clinicians who understand the challenges faced on the care front. Our journal articles are shared with skin committees and used as inservice tools. One reader distributes subscription cards to her nursing students.

  Topics. Although several survey respondents remarked that OWM does everything right and not to change a thing, the journal will proactively evolve in pace with reader interest. Some of the topics most often suggested for future exploration include regulatory and legislative demands, applying evidence-based practice to the beside, telemedicine, healing denuded skin, ostomy complications and interventions, bariatric concerns, staging wounds, advanced skin therapy, product comparisons, legal aspects of wound care, burns, pediatrics, end-stage disease, venous procedures, and articles related to specific wound care settings. As always, this list will be shared with the OWM Editorial Boards but I also urge readers to type these topics into the OWM archive search – we have addressed them all. But because of the ever-changing regulatory climate and on-going advancements (or sometimes a return to old-fashioned basics like honey and silver), we will continue to expand the cumulative information our readers seek.

  Voices. The best parts of these surveys are the participant comments. Some reveal a great deal about the challenges clinicians face: Very useful, especially in showing others – ie, doctors – how wound care has advanced beyond their medical training from years ago. And, Our facility’s educational budget is limited and this limits my attendance for professional conferences, so the information I receive from Ostomy Wound Management is very important to my practice. A home care nurse wrote, You can be very much alone in your organization. [OWM] helps bridge the knowledge gap when you are by yourself. A lone ET in a small rural hospital remarked, I depend on journal articles to keep me up-to-date on what is happening in the world of wound care.

  In fairness and in the interest of science, a very small percentage of readers responds to requests for reader information. Typically, such surveys only attract the attention of those profoundly satisfied (or dis-) with a particular publication. Please know that the editors and contributors have dedicated their efforts to providing the information you need to improve your practice and appreciate your feedback as to whether we are succeeding. When you have applied something you learned by reading OWM and your patient turns shiny eyes to you and murmurs, Thank you, why not inform the author of that particular contribution and let the wound, ostomy, continence world reverberate with your satisfaction? You know who you are. Let us know, too.

This article was not subject to the Ostomy Wound Management peer-review process.