Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review

被引:328
|
作者
Pancorbo-Hidalgo, PL
Garcia-Fernandez, FP
Lopez-Medina, IM
Alvarez-Nieto, C
机构
[1] Univ Jaen, Sch Nursing, Jaen 23071, Spain
[2] Univ Hosp Jaen, Res & Qual Unit, Jaen, Spain
关键词
meta-analysis; nursing; pressure ulcers; risk assessment scales; risk factors; systematic review;
D O I
10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03794.x
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
This paper reports a systematic review conducted to determine the effectiveness of the use of risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention in clinical practice, degree of validation of risk assessment scales, and effectiveness of risk assessment scales as indicators of risk of developing a pressure ulcer. Pressure ulcers are an important health problem. The best strategy to avoid them is prevention. There are several risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention which complement nurses' clinical judgement. However, some of these have not undergone proper validation. A systematic bibliographical review was conducted, based on a search of 14 databases in four languages using the keywords pressure ulcer or pressure sore or decubitus ulcer and risk assessment. Reports of clinical trials or prospective studies of validation were included in the review. Thirty-three studies were included in the review, three on clinical effectiveness and the rest on scale validation. There is no decrease in pressure ulcer incidence was found which might be attributed to use of an assessment scale. However, the use of scales increases the intensity and effectiveness of prevention interventions. The Braden Scale shows optimal validation and the best sensitivity/specificity balance (57.1%/67.5%, respectively); its score is a good pressure ulcer risk predictor (odds ratio = 4.08, CI 95% = 2.56-6.48). The Norton Scale has reasonable scores for sensitivity (46.8%), specificity (61.8%) and risk prediction (OR = 2.16, CI 95% = 1.03-4.54). The Waterlow Scale offers a high sensitivity score (82.4%), but low specificity (27.4%); with a good risk prediction score (OR = 2.05, CI 95% = 1.11-3.76). Nurses' clinical judgement (only considered in three studies) gives moderate scores for sensitivity (50.6%) and specificity (60.1%), but is not a good pressure ulcer risk predictor (OR = 1.69, CI 95% = 0.76-3.75). There is no evidence that the use of risk assessment scales decreases pressure ulcer incidence. The Braden Scale offers the best balance between sensitivity and specificity and the best risk estimate. Both the Braden and Norton Scales are more accurate than nurses' clinical judgement in predicting pressure ulcer risk.
引用
收藏
页码:94 / 110
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Nurses' barriers to the pressure ulcer risk assessment scales implementation: A phenomenological study
    Tomas, Nestor
    Mandume, Annalisa M.
    NURSING OPEN, 2024, 11 (01):
  • [22] Patient risk factors for pressure ulcer development: Systematic review
    Coleman, Susanne
    Gorecki, Claudia
    Nelson, E. Andrea
    Closs, S. Jose
    Defloor, Tom
    Halfens, Ruud
    Farrin, Amanda
    Brown, Julia
    Schoonhoven, Lisette
    Nixon, Jane
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES, 2013, 50 (07) : 974 - 1003
  • [23] Nurses' knowledge on pressure injury prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool
    Dalvand, Sahar
    Ebadi, Abbas
    Gheshlagh, Reza Ghanei
    CLINICAL COSMETIC AND INVESTIGATIONAL DERMATOLOGY, 2018, 11 : 613 - 620
  • [24] Assessing nurses' attitudes towards pressure ulcer prevention: an updated systematic review
    Avsar, Pinar
    Renjith, Vishnu
    Chima, Comfort
    Patton, Declan
    O'Connor, Tom
    Moore, Zena
    JOURNAL OF WOUND CARE, 2023, 32 (09) : 544 - 554
  • [25] A systematic review of caregivers' knowledge and related factors towards pressure ulcer prevention
    Farzan, Ramyar
    Yarali, Mohsen
    Mollaei, Amirabbas
    Ghaderi, Aliasghar
    Takasi, Poorya
    Sarafi, Milad
    Samidoust, Pirouz
    Mahdiabadi, Morteza Zaboli
    Firooz, Mahbobeh
    Hosseini, Seyed Javad
    Vajargah, Pooyan Ghorbani
    Karkhah, Samad
    INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL, 2023, 20 (08) : 3362 - 3370
  • [26] A systematic review of nurses' practice and related factors toward pressure ulcer prevention
    Ghorbani Vajargah, Pooyan
    Mollaei, Amirabbas
    Falakdami, Atefeh
    Takasi, Poorya
    Moosazadeh, Zahra
    Esmaeili, Shaqayeq
    Emami Zeydi, Amir
    Karkhah, Samad
    INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL, 2023, 20 (06) : 2386 - 2401
  • [27] Measuring the quality of pressure ulcer prevention: A systematic mapping review of quality indicators
    Kottner, Jan
    Hahnel, Elisabeth
    Lichterfeld-Kottner, Andrea
    Blume-Peytavi, Ulrike
    Buescher, Andreas
    INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL, 2018, 15 (02) : 218 - 224
  • [28] Clinical relevance of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales. The perspective of nurses in practice
    Bernd, Reuschenbach
    Cornelia, Mahler
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, 2010, 19 : 68 - 68
  • [29] Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales; Cubbin and Jackson, Braden, and Douglas scale
    Seongsook, RNJ
    Ihnsook, RNJ
    Younghee, RNL
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES, 2004, 41 (02) : 199 - 204
  • [30] Systematic review: ulcer definition in NSAID ulcer prevention trials
    Yeomans, N. D.
    Nasdal, J.
    ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2008, 27 (06) : 465 - 472