EDITORIAL

One of the pleasures of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel is the opportunity to get involved with the work of the Panel - and just sometimes that participation leaves you holding several roles. So I am not quite sure whether I write this introduction as Editor, or as Recorder of the EPUAP or indeed as a member of the EPUAP prevalence survey working group. All three roles come together when I consider the exciting last few months in the life of the EPUAP - this of course started in Budapest in September with the 6th Open Meeting of the EPUAP. It was with some trepidation that I arrived in Budapest given that this was the first EPUAP conference where I held responsibility for the scientific programme. Looking around the conference I think the blend of presentations, satellite meetings, the exhibition and not least the social programme resulted in a most enjoyable event. One of the key moments in Budapest was the presentation of the work of the pressure ulcer prevalence group - this project having come to fruition after almost two years hard work by the working group! The report of this project is presented within this issue of the EPUAP Review and poses challenges for the future of the Panel. The common occurrence of pressure ulcers within the surveyed hospitals reinforces our view that pressure ulcers are very common in health care across Europe. But how do we make non-EPUAP members aware of this without appearing to suggest that care is less than optimal or that preventive care is not treated seriously? Over the remainder of 2002 the EPUAP will be developing vehicles for bringing the prevalence survey results to a wider population - so look forward to the EPUAP being seen as a strong voice for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment!

The success of Budapest marks yet another stage in the development of the EPUAP. As Recorder I now look forward to next year's Open Meeting to be held in Tampere, Finland. The challenge is to build upon the Budapest meeting to make next year yet another strong conference. As Editor I would encourage all EPUAP members to consider writing to the Review to let the conference planning team know what sort of topics you want to see covered in Tampere. We cannot promise to include everything, but the Programme Committee would like to make the meeting relevant to the interests of all EPUAP members - so tell us what you want, and what you don't want to see in Tampere!

Michael Clark
Editor