© 3M 2011. All Rights Reserved. 3M ™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape
Aug 20, 2015
2
3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape
One of a Kind Story
Over 50 years ago, a team of 3M scientists began their
quest for a better medical tape. Among them was Frank
Copeland, a 3M research scientist with a vested interest.
“After knee surgery, there were days when the tape
caused me more pain than the surgery itself,” said
Copeland. After three years, multiple experiments, trials,
disappointments, and more than 300 different variations
and combinations of adhesives and backing, the
scientists launched the first of 3M’s superior medical tape
products.
3M has supplied health care providers with the finest
skin and wound care products ever since.
© 3M 2011. All Rights Reserved.
3
3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape
3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape builds on 3M’s history of of innovation to bring
you a new, silicone-based, adhesive technology that delivers reliable fixation and
atraumatic removal in one easy-to-use, affordable tape.
One of Kind Tape
© 3M 2011. All Rights Reserved.
Unique characteristics make 3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape
unlike any medical tape you’ve used before.
Note: Studies have not evaluated 3M Kind Removal Silicone Tape for use as primary
securement of critical tubing. 3M does not recommend it for this use. Clinical judgment is
needed when making decisions about patient care.
4
3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape
Care Without Compromise
© 3M 2011. All Rights Reserved.
Freedom to Care MoreYou want to give your patients the very best care and spare them from unnecessary
discomfort. 3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape is a smarter medical tape with the ideal
blend of properties to help you care for your patients who have fragile or at-risk skin.
Security Offers reliable yet pliable fixation, remains in
place until you decide otherwise.
Comfort Removes cleanly, without disrupting fragile
skin layers or causing patients any undue pain.
Ease of Use Can be repositioned and neatly torn by hand.
* From pre-market clinical evaluations
5
3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape
Patients will feel
the difference
the moment it
goes on...
and comes off.
Less Trauma, More Comfort
© 3M 2011. All Rights Reserved.
Research confirms that upon removal, 3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape causes
minimal epidermal cell stripping and less pulling of hair.2,18
6
3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape
Ideal Securement Over Time
© 3M 2011. All Rights Reserved.
3M Kind Removal Silicone Tape provides the same adhesive strength you selected
when you applied the tape, even after 48 hours of wear.2
This consistent adhesion level means the tape stays in place and removes gently
every time. No worries, no surprises.
Commercially Available Paper Tape
Commercially Available Soft Cloth Tape
3M Kind Removal Silicone Tape
7
3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape
Ideal Adhesion Right From the Start
Silicone adhesives have lower surface tension, allowing the silicone to conform quickly to
the skin’s natural profile and create a secure bond immediately. The ideal adhesive level
selected at application remains constant throughout wear time.
How Is It Possible? Unique Performance Characteristics
© 3M 2011. All Rights Reserved.
Less Force at Removal
More “spring” means the energy of
the bond can dissipate through the
adhesive rather than through the skin.
Removal of the tape does not cause
the skin to pull up the same way it
does with traditional adhesives.
8
3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape
Skin Injury is Occurring More Often Than You Think
© 3M 2011. All Rights Reserved.
Injury to the epidermis affects at least 1.5
million patients annually in the U.S.
alone.4,23,31 The problem occurs across units
in the health care setting28 and its prevalence
is expected to grow as the number of patients
with fragile skin continues to increase.
Use of adhesive products such as tape can
exacerbate the risk of skin injury. 3,5,7,11,26,27,28,33
Konya reported that cumulative
incidence of skin injury caused by
tape removal may be as high as
15.5%.20
Pennsylvania Patient Safety Advisory
reports that over a 1-year period,
only hospital beds and patient
positioning were mentioned more
often than tape as factors
contributing to skin tears.28
9
3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape
The Cost Is High
© 3M 2011. All Rights Reserved.
Patients who suffer skin trauma not only experience discomfort but they often require
more nursing time, more materials, take longer to heal,21,32 and have increased risk of
infection and chronic wounds.25
To prevent skin injury today, nurses often use skin protectants, adhesive removers,
special applications and removal work-around techniques, or alternative products.
These precautionary activities are costly in both materials and nursing time.
Even with the extra steps to protect skin, tape-related abrasions occur 5.9% of the
time.20 The cost to treat abrasions is significant. In fact, the cost of dressing an
abrasion alone costs facilities at least $20.00 per patient and sometimes as much
as $50.00.16,17 That results in $1.18 – $2.95 for every patient admitted to the facility.
For patients whose injury becomes chronic, infected, or
requires surgical intervention, the treatment cost is even
higher. Additional treatments for chronic or infected wounds
could include: debridement, wound irrigation, barrier ointment,
cushioning, antimicrobials, and even surgical grafting.
10
3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape
Preventing Injury Makes Sense
© 3M 2011. All Rights Reserved.
Prevention and treatment of tape-related skin damage
are both costly and time-consuming.
A standard hospital can spend an $19,185 per year managing tape risks and
treatments.1,2,34,35 For patients whose injuries require debridement, wound irrigation,
mobility treatment, cushioning, antimicrobials or surgical grafting, the costs are higher.
3M Kind Removal Silicone Tape lowers the overall cost of care by reducing the need for
extra steps to protect skin and reducing the incidence of skin trauma.*Cost of 100 Fragile
Skin Patients1,34,35
The costs of
prevention/treatment
before and after the
introduction of 3M™
Kind Removal Silicone
Tape were calculated
using the cost per
use of
prevention/treatment
and incidence.
**Assuming 1:1
replacement of
current tape
product; will vary by
specific products
used.
11
3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape
Reducing Infection and Waste
© 3M 2011. All Rights Reserved.
To combat cross-contamination, Federal and CDC guidelines increasingly suggest that
some items, such as adhesive tapes, should not be shared between patients.15,19 As a
result, infection prevention-conscious facilities often dedicate a single roll of tape to a
single patient. With traditional rolls of tape, this results in up to 90% of the tape on a
single roll being discarded. In other words, more than two miles of tape is wasted for
every 1,000 patients discharged.1
That’s why 3M offers single-patient-use rolls so you can dedicate a roll to a single
patient, preventing cross-contamination without creating excessive waste.
12
3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape
Reducing Inventory Costs
© 3M 2011. All Rights Reserved.
“Supply chain costs consume as much as 40% of total
operating budget, the second largest expense for
hospitals.”12 Even small changes can have a significant
effect on the bottom line, as much as 10-12% savings.12
As part of your facility’s overall efforts to optimize inventory
through the reduction of SKUs, 3M Kind Removal Silicone
Tape is an excellent choice for standardization because of
its unique balance of properties. At 3M, we partner with you
to provide the most versatile medical tapes available so
you can manage inventory holding costs through SKU
rationalization
14
3M™ Kind Removal Silicone Tape
References
© 3M 2011. All Rights Reserved.
1. 3M Market Research Data on File (2010/2011)
2. 3M Clinical Data on File (2010/2011)
3. Baranoski, et al. Wound Care Essentials: Practice Principles.
New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004
4. Birch, et al. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2003;49(1):64-67
5. Blaylock, et al. Orthopaedic Nursing 1995: 14(3)
6. Bradley, et al. J of Wound Care. 2001;10(1):521-3
7. Bryant, et al. Am J of Nursing 1988;Feb, 189-191
8. Bryant, et al. Orthopaedic Nursing 1995: 14(3)
9. Carville, et al. Primary Intention. 1998;6(2):54-62
10. Carville, et al. Primary Intention. 2004;12(1):41-48
11. Cutting, et al. J of Wound Care 2008;17(4)
12. Darling, et al. Mat Mgt in Hlth Care 2010;19(4)
13. Edwards, et al. J Nursing Pract. 1998;4(1):25-32
14. Everett, et al. Primary Intention. 1994;2(1):28-30
15. Federal Register Vol 73, No 73 Rules and Regulations (73 FR
20373 4/15/2008)
16. Gannon, et al. Clinical Symposium on Advances in Skin &
Wound Care. 2008
17. Groom, et al. J WOCN. 2010;37(1)
18. Grove, et al. J of WOCN. 2011;38 (3S):S78-9
19. Hageman JC et al, Investigation and control of vancomycin-
intermediate and -resistant Staphylococcus areaus: A guide for
health departments and infection prevention personnel. CDC.
Atlanta, GA 2006
20. Konya, et al. J of Clin Nursing 2010;19:1236-42
21. Lober et al. Southern Med J. 1991;39:1444-6
22. Malone, et al. J of Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;29:591-5
23. Mason, et al. Ostomy Wound Manage. 1998; 43(8):26-30
24. McErlean, et al. Primary Intention. 2004;12(2):83-88
25. McGough-Scarny, et al. Ostomy Wound Manage.
1998;44(3A):14S-25S
26. Meulenieire, et al. J of Wound Care. 2002;11(10):365-9
27. Morey, et al. Primary Intention 2007;15(3)
28. PAPSRS. Skin Tears: the Clinical Challenge.
www.psa.state.pa.us/psa/advisories. Accessed July 2010
29. Payne, et al. Ostomy Wound Manage. 1990;26:26-37
30. Ratliff, et al. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2002;48(3)
31. White, et al. Geriatr Nurs. 1994;15(2):95-99
32. White, et al. Primary Intention. 2001;9(4):138-149
33. White, et al. Wounds UK. 2005;1:104-9
34. National Health Statistics Reports No 5, July 30, 2008.
DeFrances et al. US Dept of HHS, CDC. NCHS
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr005.pdf)
35. Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/ncs/.) May 2010
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.
(http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#29-0000).