Our customers find COPA™, COPA™ Plus, and COPA™ Island Foam Dressings softer, more supportive, more absorbent and easier to use than other leading brands.

In a recent clinical preference evaluation, 4 out of 5 clinicians preferred COPA™ Foam Dressings over competing foam dressings*.

We gathered survey information from over 100 clinicians from 4 institutions throughout the United States on how COPA™ Foam Dressings performed in real-world trials.

See what some of our customers have to say >>

Highlights from the Findings

Clinicians agree. COPA™ Foam Dressings are—

  • Soft and comfortable, 99% (of clinicians agree)
  • Gentle to use, 97%
  • Fluid retentive during dressing changes, 95%
  • Easy to apply to wound, 92%
  • Easy to size and shape to wound, 91%
  • Helpful in minimizing or eliminating skin maceration, 90%
  • Highly absorbent, 89%

* According to results of the COPA™ Foam Dressings Clinical Preference Evaluation (CPE) completed on October 10, 2005. Read Methodology.

Methodology for COPA™ Foam Dressings Clinical Preference Evaluation

This study was an open-label customer acceptance and preference evaluation of COPA™ Ultra-Soft Foam Dressing. Four clinical sites participated in the evaluation: Two acute care facilities, one long term care, and one home healthcare agency. The evaluation was designed to follow the use of the dressings for four weeks at each site.

Clinicians completed the questionnaires in each of the settings under the direction of a Study Coordinator. The nursing staff was instructed to substitute the COPA™ Foam Dressing on wounds appropriate for the use of foam dressings. A minimum of 20 questionnaires were collected from each of the four sites. The questionnaires evaluated the newly designed dressing for the following physical and clinical properties:

  • Control of skin maceration
  • Patient comfort during application and use
  • Conformability to the shape of the wound
  • Absorbency
  • Softness
  • Wear time
  • Cutting ease
  • Dressing adhesion to the wound bed

In addition, clinicians were asked to provide an overall clinical performance rating of the dressing on a scale of 1 to 5. The questionnaire further asked the clinicians that were using foam products to compare COPA™ Foam Dressings to the foam dressing that they were currently using. The product sizes used in the evaluation were 4" x 4" and 5" x 5." A case of each size was provided to the participating sites.

The regional Wound Care Specialists in-serviced three of the four sites prior to starting the evaluation. A specially trained nurse in-serviced the long term care facilities. Detailed instructions for the conduct of the evaluation were provided to each of the sites.

Subjects included in the study were adults with wounds clinically indicated for foam dressings. The only criteria excluding subjects were wounds that were contraindicated for foam dressings (dry wounds and full-thickness burns) and an age of less than 18 years.

Study Duration
Start Date - May 2005
Completion Date - September 2005