Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Risk Assessment Scales (risk + assessment_scale)
Selected AbstractsRisk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic reviewJOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, Issue 1 2006Pedro L. Pancorbo-Hidalgo PhD RN Aim., 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. Background., 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. Method., 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. Findings., 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). Conclusion., 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. [source] The impact of pressure ulcer risk assessment on patient outcomes among hospitalised patientsJOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, Issue 13 2009Mohammad Saleh Aims and objectives., To determine whether use of a risk assessment scale reduces nosocomial pressure ulcers. Background., There is contradictory evidence concerning the validity of risk assessment scales. The interaction of education, clinical judgement and use of risk assessment scales has not been fully explored. It is not known which of these is most important, nor whether combining them results in better patient care. Design., Pretest,posttest comparison. Methods., A risk assessment scale namely the Braden was implemented in a group of wards after appropriate education and training of staff in addition to mandatory wound care study days. Another group of staff received the same education programme but did not implement the risk assessment scale and a third group carried on with mandatory study days only. Results., Nosocomial Pressure Ulcer was reduced in all three groups, but the group that implemented the risk assessment scale showed no significant additional improvement. Allowing for age, gender, medical speciality, level of risk and other factors did not explain this lack of improvement. Clinical judgement seemed to be used by nurses to identify patients at high risk to implement appropriate risk reduction strategies such as use of pressure relieving beds. Clinical judgement was not significantly different from the risk assessment scale score in terms of risk evaluation. Conclusions., It is questioned whether the routine use of a risk assessment scale is useful in reducing nosocomial pressure ulcer. It is suggested clinical judgement is as effective as a risk assessment scale in terms of assessing risk (though neither show good sensitivity and specificity) and determining appropriate care. Relevance to clinical practice., Clinical judgement may be as effective as employing a risk assessment scale to assess the risk of pressure ulcers. If this were true it would be simpler and release nursing time for other tasks. [source] Predicting pressure ulcer risk: a multifactorial approach to assess risk factors in a large university hospital populationJOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, Issue 1 2009Michael Nonnemacher Aims., The purpose of this study was: (1) to determine the combination of risk factors which best predicts the risk of developing pressure ulcers among inpatients in an acute care university hospital; (2) to determine the appropriate weight for each risk factor; and (3) to derive a concise and easy-to-use risk assessment tool for daily use by nursing staff. Background., Efficient application of preventive measures against pressure ulcers requires the identification of patients at risk. Adequate risk assessment tools are still needed because the predictive value of existing tools is sometimes unsatisfactory. Design., Survey. Methods., A sample of 34,238 cases admitted to Essen University Clinics from April 2003 and discharged up to and including March 2004, was enrolled into the study. Nursing staff recorded data on pressure ulcer status and potential risk factors on admission. Predictors were identified and weighted by multivariate logistic regression. We derived a risk assessment scale from the final logistic regression model by assigning point values to each predictor according to its individual weight. Results., The period prevalence rate of pressure ulcers was 1·8% (625 cases). The analysis identified 12 predictors for developing pressure ulcers. With the optimum cut-off point sensitivity and specificity were 83·4 and 83·1%, respectively, with a positive predictive value of 8·4% and a negative predictive value of 99·6%. The diagnostic probabilities of the derived scale were similar to those of the original regression model. Conclusions., The predictors mostly correspond to those used in established scales, although the use of weighted factors is a partly novel approach. Both the final regression model and the derived scale show good prognostic validity. Relevance to clinical practice., The derived risk assessment scale is an easy-to-understand, easy-to-use tool with good prognostic validity and can assist in effective application of preventive measures against pressure ulcer. [source] Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic reviewJOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, Issue 1 2006Pedro L. Pancorbo-Hidalgo PhD RN Aim., 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. Background., 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. Method., 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. Findings., 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). Conclusion., 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. [source] The impact of pressure ulcer risk assessment on patient outcomes among hospitalised patientsJOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, Issue 13 2009Mohammad Saleh Aims and objectives., To determine whether use of a risk assessment scale reduces nosocomial pressure ulcers. Background., There is contradictory evidence concerning the validity of risk assessment scales. The interaction of education, clinical judgement and use of risk assessment scales has not been fully explored. It is not known which of these is most important, nor whether combining them results in better patient care. Design., Pretest,posttest comparison. Methods., A risk assessment scale namely the Braden was implemented in a group of wards after appropriate education and training of staff in addition to mandatory wound care study days. Another group of staff received the same education programme but did not implement the risk assessment scale and a third group carried on with mandatory study days only. Results., Nosocomial Pressure Ulcer was reduced in all three groups, but the group that implemented the risk assessment scale showed no significant additional improvement. Allowing for age, gender, medical speciality, level of risk and other factors did not explain this lack of improvement. Clinical judgement seemed to be used by nurses to identify patients at high risk to implement appropriate risk reduction strategies such as use of pressure relieving beds. Clinical judgement was not significantly different from the risk assessment scale score in terms of risk evaluation. Conclusions., It is questioned whether the routine use of a risk assessment scale is useful in reducing nosocomial pressure ulcer. It is suggested clinical judgement is as effective as a risk assessment scale in terms of assessing risk (though neither show good sensitivity and specificity) and determining appropriate care. Relevance to clinical practice., Clinical judgement may be as effective as employing a risk assessment scale to assess the risk of pressure ulcers. If this were true it would be simpler and release nursing time for other tasks. [source] Non-blanchable erythema as an indicator for the need for pressure ulcer prevention: a randomized-controlled trialJOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, Issue 2 2007Katrien Vanderwee MA Aims and objectives., To evaluate whether postponing preventive measures until non-blanchable erythema appears will actually lead to an increase in incidence of pressure ulcers (grades 2,4) when compared with the standard risk assessment method. Background., To distinguish patients at risk for pressure ulcers from those not at risk, risk assessment scales are recommended. These scales have limited predictive validity. The prevention of further deterioration of non-blanchable erythema (grade 1 pressure ulcer) instead of the standard way of assigning prevention could be a possible new approach. Design., Randomized-controlled trial. Methods., Patients admitted to surgical, internal or geriatric wards (n = 1617) were included. They were randomly assigned to an experimental and a control group. In the experimental group (n = 826), prevention was started when non-blanchable erythema appeared, in the control group (n = 791) when the Braden score was <17 or when non-blanchable erythema appeared. In both groups, patients received identical prevention, either by using a polyethylene,urethane mattress in combination with turning every four hours or by using an alternating pressure air mattress. Pressure points were observed daily and classified according to the four grades of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. The Braden scale was scored every three days. Results., In the experimental group, 16% of patients received preventive measures, in the control group 32%. The pressure ulcer incidence (grades 2,4) was not significantly different between the experimental (6·8%) and control group (6·7%). Conclusion., Significantly fewer patients need preventive measures when prevention is postponed until non-blanchable erythema appears and those patients did not develop more pressure ulcers than patients who received prevention based on the standard risk assessment method. Relevance to clinical practice., Using the appearance of non-blanchable erythema to allocate preventive measures leads to a considerable reduction of patients in need of prevention without resulting in an increase in pressure ulcers. [source] Pressure ulcers: validation of two risk assessment scalesJOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, Issue 3 2005Tom Defloor PhD Aims and objectives., To compare the predictive value of two pressure ulcer risk assessment scales (Braden and Norton) and of clinical judgement. To evaluate the impact of effective preventive measures on the predictive validity of the two risk assessment scales. Methods., Of the 1772 participating older patients, 314 were randomly selected and assigned to the ,turning' group; 1458 patients were assigned to the ,non-turning' group. Using the Braden and the Norton scale the pressure ulcer risk was scored twice weekly during a four-week period. Clinical assessment was monitored daily. The patients at risk in the ,turning' group (Braden score <17 or Norton score <12) were randomly assigned to a two-hour turning schedule or to a four-hour turning schedule in combination with a pressure-reducing mattress. The ,non-turning' group received preventive care based on the clinical judgement of the nurses. Results., The diagnostic accuracy was similar for both scales. If nurses act according to risk assessment scales, 80% of the patients would unnecessarily receive preventive measures. The use of effective preventive measures decreased the predictive value of the risk assessment scales. Nurses predicted pressure ulcer development less well than the Braden and the Norton scale. Only activity, sensory perception, skin condition and existence of old pressure ulcers were significant predictors of pressure ulcer lesions. Relevance to clinical practice., The effectiveness of the Norton and Braden scales is very low. Much needless work is done and expensive material is wrongly allocated. The use of effective preventive measures decreases the predictive value of the risk assessment scales. Although the performance of the risk assessment scales is poor, using a risk assessment tool seems to be a better alternative than relying on the clinical judgement of the nurses. [source] | ||||||||||