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
  • [31] Sheepskin in ulcer prevention: A pressure relieving assessment
    Jin, Zou
    Qiuyue, Tang
    Bo, Xu
    Wuyong, Chen
    Journal of the Society of Leather Technologies and Chemists, 2013, 97 (04): : 172 - 175
  • [32] Sheepskin in Ulcer Prevention: A Pressure Relieving Assessment
    Zou Jin
    Tang Qiuyue
    Xu Bo
    Chen Wuyong
    JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LEATHER TECHNOLOGISTS AND CHEMISTS, 2013, 97 (04): : 172 - 175
  • [33] Evaluating the development and validation of empirically-derived prognostic models for pressure ulcer risk assessment: A systematic review
    Shi, Chunhu
    Dumville, Jo C.
    Cullum, Nicky
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES, 2019, 89 : 88 - 103
  • [34] PRESSURE ULCER RISK PREVENTION IN PROCEDURAL DEPARTMENT
    Haugen, Vicki
    Powell, Julie
    JOURNAL OF WOUND OSTOMY AND CONTINENCE NURSING, 2011, 38 (03) : S72 - S72
  • [35] ALGORITHM FOR THE PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF PRESSURE ULCERS: AN ENABLER TO FACILITATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RNAO BPG ON RISK ASSESSMENT AND PRESSURE ULCER PREVENTION
    Abner, Deborah
    St-Cyr, Diane
    D'Souza, Lincoln
    JOURNAL OF WOUND OSTOMY AND CONTINENCE NURSING, 2010, 37 (03) : S49 - S49
  • [36] PRESSURE ULCER AND RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
    Crawford, Laura
    JOURNAL OF WOUND OSTOMY AND CONTINENCE NURSING, 2012, 39 (03) : S69 - S69
  • [37] A systematic review of nursing students' attitude and related factors towards pressure ulcer prevention
    Hermis, Alaa Hamza
    Mollaei, Amirabbas
    Vajargah, Pooyan Ghorbani
    Karkhah, Samad
    Takasi, Poorya
    Firooz, Mahbobeh
    Hosseini, Seyed Javad
    Otaghvar, Hamidreza Alizadeh
    Raziani, Yosra
    INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL, 2023, 20 (08) : 3404 - 3416
  • [38] Knowledge, attitude, and practice of Iranian nurses towards pressure ulcer prevention: A systematic review
    Zeydi, Amir Emami
    Ghazanfari, Mohammad Javad
    Esmaeili, Shaqayeq
    Mobayen, Mohammadreza
    Soltani, Yasaman
    Sigaroudi, Abdolhossien Emami
    Fast, Olive
    Karkhah, Samad
    JOURNAL OF TISSUE VIABILITY, 2022, 31 (03) : 444 - 452
  • [39] Psychosocial factors impacting community-based pressure ulcer prevention: A systematic review
    Heywood-Everett, Suzanne
    Henderson, Rebecca
    Webb, Claire
    Bland, Amy R.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES, 2023, 146
  • [40] Should We Eliminate the Word "Predictability" When Discussing Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scales?
    Olshansky, Kenneth
    JOURNAL OF WOUND OSTOMY AND CONTINENCE NURSING, 2014, 41 (03) : 211 - 211