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
  • [41] Comparison of the predictive validity among pressure ulcer risk assessment scales for surgical ICU patients
    Kim, Eun-Kyung
    Lee, Sun-Mi
    Lee, Eunpyo
    Eom, Mi-Ran
    AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2009, 26 (04) : 87 - 94
  • [42] Comparing the Accuracy of the Braden and the Waterlow Scales for Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment in Intensive Care Unit
    Valiee, Sina
    Nemati, Syede
    Hossaini, Midia
    Kashefi, Hajar
    Mohammadi, Hiwa
    NURSING AND MIDWIFERY STUDIES, 2022, 11 (02) : 160 - 165
  • [43] Pressure ulcer prevention and treatment interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review
    Zuniga, Julie
    Mungai, Margaret
    Chism, Lucy
    Frost, Livia
    Kakkar, Reha
    Kyololo, O'Brien
    NURSING OUTLOOK, 2024, 72 (03)
  • [44] Predictive Validity of 4 Risk Assessment Scales for Prediction of Pressure Ulcer Development in a Hospital Setting
    Kallman, Ulrika
    Lindgren, Margareta
    ADVANCES IN SKIN & WOUND CARE, 2014, 27 (02) : 70 - 76
  • [45] Suicide Risk Assessment and Prevention: A Systematic Review Focusing on Veterans
    Nelson, Heidi D.
    Denneson, Lauren M.
    Low, Allison R.
    Bauer, Brian W.
    O'Neil, Maya
    Kansagara, Devan
    Teo, Alan R.
    PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, 2017, 68 (10) : 1003 - 1015
  • [46] Risk factors for pressure ulcer development in Intensive Care Units: A systematic review
    Lima Serrano, M.
    Gonzalez Mendez, M. I.
    Carrasco Cebollero, F. M.
    Lima Rodriguez, J. S.
    MEDICINA INTENSIVA, 2017, 41 (06) : 339 - 346
  • [47] Nurses' attitude on pressure injury prevention: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on the pressure ulcer prevention instrument (APuP)
    Rostamvand, Maryam
    Abdi, Kamel
    Gheshlagh, Reza Ghanei
    Khaki, Soore
    Dehvan, Fazel
    Barzgaran, Raziyeh
    JOURNAL OF TISSUE VIABILITY, 2022, 31 (02) : 346 - 352
  • [48] Systematic review of nutricional support in pressure ulcer
    De Luis, D.
    Aller, R.
    ANALES DE MEDICINA INTERNA, 2007, 24 (07) : 342 - 345
  • [49] The Epidemiology of Pressure Ulcer in Germany: Systematic Review
    Tomova-Simitchieva, Tsenka
    Akdeniz, Merve
    Blume-Peytavi, Ulrike
    Lahmann, Nils
    Kottner, Jan
    GESUNDHEITSWESEN, 2019, 81 (06) : 505 - 512
  • [50] Pressure ulcer prevention: development of an attitude assessment instrument
    Tom, Defloor
    Dimitri, Beeckman
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, 2010, 19 : 67 - 67