Recent advances in the physiology of wound repair, in particular the identification of multiple growth factors, challenge previous understanding of the healing process and demand familiarity with molecular biology and cellular physiology. In the midst of this, few, poorly tested, seldom used methods of evaluating real patient's wounds exist. This paper analyzes some of the historical reasons underlying the present dearth of methods for systematically monitoring human healing. The discussion points out that this paucity did not occur because of a lack of interest or good will on the part of many. Knowledge of the past and the needs of the present, however, should only serve as fodder for changing the status quo. Those non-invasive instruments available for use in the clinical measurement of healing are described. Finally, suggestions for rectifying the need for valid, reliable, clinically useful methods of evaluating healing in humans are presented. © 1991.

Clinicians could be overwhelmed with all that needs to be done to advance the clinical care of tissue wounds. This is not the time to be discouraged, however. Perhaps there has been no period in the history of health care when the possibility of influencing future trends in wound care was greater. Generally speaking, nurses are increasing their understanding of their place in healing activities and are involved in tending wounds that demand greater direct care. Simultaneously, some manufacturers of wound care products seek the input of clinicians as they attempt to produce sound and usable products. Articles appear that delimit scientifically based approaches to wound care and debunk those based solely on tradition. Levine reminded us that "perhaps no worker can influence the success of the healing process more than the nurse." I encourage the readers of this article to take Levine's statement to heart, to latch onto the current momentum, and to force the next decade in health care to be referred to not as the "era of the wound" but rather as the "era of healing."

Chronic wounds represent a worldwide problem. For laboratory and clinical research to adequately address this problem, a common language needs to exist. This language should include a system of wound classification, a lexicon of wound descriptors, and a description of the processes that are likely to affect wound healing and would healing end points. The report that follows defines wound, acute wound, chronic wound, healing and forms of healing, wound assessment, wound extent, wound burden, and wound severity. The utility of these definitions is demonstrated as they relate to the healing of a skin wound, but these definitions are broadly applicable to all wounds.