Inter-rater reliability of three most commonly used pressure ulcer risk assessment scales in clinical practice

Li-Hua Wang, Hong-Lin Chen, Hong-Yan Yan, Jian-Hua Gao, Fang Wang, Yue Ming, Li Lu, Jing-Jing Ding, Li-Hua Wang, Hong-Lin Chen, Hong-Yan Yan, Jian-Hua Gao, Fang Wang, Yue Ming, Li Lu, Jing-Jing Ding

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate inter-rater reliability of Braden Scale, Norton Scale and Waterlow Scale for pressure ulcer risk assessment in clinical practice. The design of the study was cross-sectional. A total of 23 patients at pressure ulcer risk were included in the study, and 6 best registered nurses conducted three subsequent risk assessments for all included patients. They assessed alone and independently from each other. An intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine the inter-rater reliability. For the Braden Scale, the ICC values ranged between 0·603 (95% CI: 0·435-0·770) for the item 'moisture' and a maximum of 0·964 (95% CI: 0·936-0·982) for the item 'activity'; for the Norton Scale, the ICC values ranged between 0·595 (95% CI: 0·426-0·764) for the item 'physical condition' and a maximum of 0·975 (95% CI: 0·955-0·988) for the item 'activity'; and for the Waterlow Scale, the ICC values ranged between 0·592 (95% CI: 0·422-0·762) for the item 'skin type' and a maximum of 0·990 (95% CI: 0·982-0·995) for the item 'activity'. The ICC values of total score for three scales of were 0·955 (95% CI: 0·922-0·978), 0·967 (95% CI: 0·943-0·984), and 0·915 (95% CI: 0·855-0·958) for Braden, Norton, and Waterlow scales, respectively. Although the inter-rater reliability of Braden Scale, Norton Scale and Waterlow Scale total scores were all substantial, the reliability of some items was not so good. The items of 'moisture', 'physical condition' and 'skin type' should be paid more attention. However, some studies are needed to find out high reliable quantitative items to replace these ambiguous items in new designed scales.

Keywords: Assessment tools; Braden Scale; Inter-rater reliability; Norton Scale; Pressure ulcer; Waterlow Scale.

© 2014 The Authors. International Wound Journal © 2014 Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

References

    1. Vangilder C, Macfarlane GD, Meyer S. Results of nine international pressure ulcer prevalence surveys: 1989 to 2005. Ostomy Wound Manage 2008;54:40–54.
    1. VanGilder C, Amlung S, Harrison P, Meyer S. Results of the 2008–2009 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey and a 3‐year, acute care, unit‐specific analysis. Ostomy Wound Manage 2009;55:39–45.
    1. House S, Giles T, Whitcomb J. Benchmarking to the international pressure ulcer prevalence survey. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2011;38:254–9.
    1. Bennett G, Dealey C, Posnett J. The cost of pressure ulcers in the UK. Age Ageing 2004;33:230–5.
    1. Dealey C, Posnett J, Walker A. The cost of pressure ulcers in the United Kingdom. J Wound Care 2012;21:261–2, 264, 266.
    1. Norton D. Calculating the risk: reflections on the Norton Scale. 1989. Adv Wound Care 1996;9:38–43.
    1. Bergstrom N, Braden BJ, Laguzza A, Holman V. The Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Nurs Res 1987;36:205–10.
    1. Waterlow J. Pressure sores: a risk assessment card. Nurs Times 1985;81:49–55.
    1. Gould D, Goldstone L, Kelly D, Gammon J. Examining the validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: a replication study. Int J Nurs Stud 2004;41:331–9.
    1. Jun Seongsook RN, Jeong Ihnsook RN, Lee Younghee RN. Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales; Cubbin and Jackson, Braden, and Douglas Scale. Int J Nurs Stud 2004;41:199–204.
    1. Ayello EA, Braden B. How and why to do pressure ulcer risk assessment. Adv Skin Wound Care 2002;15:125–31; quiz 132–3.
    1. Shrout PE. Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Stat Methods Med Res 1998;7:301–17.
    1. Pancorbo‐Hidalgo PL, Garcia‐Fernandez FP, Lopez‐Medina IM, Alvarez‐Nieto C. Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs 2006;54:94–110.
    1. Kottner J, Dassen T. Pressure ulcer risk assessment in critical care: interrater reliability and validity studies of the Braden and Waterlow scales and subjective ratings in two intensive care units. Int J Nurs Stud 2010;47:671–7.
    1. Sullivan LM, Massaro JM, D'Agostino RB Sr. Presentation of multivariate data for clinical use: the Framingham Study risk score functions. Stat Med 2004;23:1631–60.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren