Prospective cohort study of routine use of risk assessment scales for prediction of pressure ulcers

Lisette Schoonhoven, Jeen R E Haalboom, Mente T Bousema, Ale Algra, Diederick E Grobbee, Maria H Grypdonck, Erik Buskens, prePURSE study group. The prevention and pressure ulcer risk score evaluation study, Lisette Schoonhoven, Jeen R E Haalboom, Mente T Bousema, Ale Algra, Diederick E Grobbee, Maria H Grypdonck, Erik Buskens, prePURSE study group. The prevention and pressure ulcer risk score evaluation study

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate whether risk assessment scales can be used to identify patients who are likely to get pressure ulcers.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Two large hospitals in the Netherlands.

Participants: 1229 patients admitted to the surgical, internal, neurological, or geriatric wards between January 1999 and June 2000.

Main outcome measure: Occurrence of a pressure ulcer of grade 2 or worse while in hospital.

Results: 135 patients developed pressure ulcers during four weeks after admission. The weekly incidence of patients with pressure ulcers was 6.2% (95% confidence interval 5.2% to 7.2%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.56 (0.51 to 0.61) for the Norton scale, 0.55 (0.49 to 0.60) for the Braden scale, and 0.61 (0.56 to 0.66) for the Waterlow scale; the areas for the subpopulation, excluding patients who received preventive measures without developing pressure ulcers and excluding surgical patients, were 0.71 (0.65 to 0.77), 0.71 (0.64 to 0.78), and 0.68 (0.61 to 0.74), respectively. In this subpopulation, using the recommended cut-off points, the positive predictive value was 7.0% for the Norton, 7.8% for the Braden, and 5.3% for the Waterlow scale.

Conclusion: Although risk assessment scales predict the occurrence of pressure ulcers to some extent, routine use of these scales leads to inefficient use of preventive measures. An accurate risk assessment scale based on prospectively gathered data should be developed.

Figures

Figure
Figure
Receiver operating characteristic curves for Norton, Braden, and Waterlow risk assessment scales in the first week, including all patients (top) and for all weeks combined, in subpopulation excluding surgical patients and patients with preventive measures who did not develop pressure ulcers (bottom)

References

    1. Health Council of the Netherlands. Pressure ulcers. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands; 1999. . (Publication No 1999/23.)
    1. Bours GJJW, Halfens RJG, Joosten CMC. Landelijk prevalentieonderzoek decubitus: uitgebreide resultaten tweede jaarlijkse meting 1999. [National pressure ulcer prevalence survey: extensive results from the second national pressure ulcer prevalence survey in 1999]. Maastricht: Department of Nursing Science, University of Maastricht; 1999. . (In Dutch.)
    1. Clark M, Farrar S. Comparison of pressure sore risk calculators. In: Harding KG, Leaper DL, editors. Proceedings of the first European conference on advances in wound management, 1991, Cardiff, United Kingdom. London: Macmillan; 1991. pp. 158–162.
    1. Panel for the prediction and prevention of pressure ulcers in adults. Pressure ulcers in adults: prediction and prevention. Rockville: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services; 1992. . (Clinical practice guideline number 3; AHCPR Publication No 92-0047.)
    1. Goodridge DM, Sloan JA, LeDoyen YM, McKenzie JA, Knight WE, Gayari M. Risk-assessment scores, prevention strategies, and the incidence of pressure ulcers among the elderly in four Canadian health-care facilities. Can J Nurs Res. 1998;30:23–44.
    1. Bergstrom N, Braden B, Kemp M, Champagne M, Ruby E. Multi-site study of incidence of pressure ulcers and the relationship between risk level, demographic characteristics, diagnoses, and prescription of preventive interventions. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44:22–30.
    1. Allman RM, Goode PS, Patrick MM, Burst N, Bartolucci AA. Pressure ulcer risk factors among hospitalized patients with activity limitation. JAMA. 1995;273:865–870.
    1. Clark M, Watts S. The incidence of pressure sores within a National Health Service Trust hospital during 1991. J Adv Nurs. 1994;20:33–36.
    1. Edwards M. The rationale for the use of risk calculators in pressure sore prevention, and the evidence of the reliability and validity of published scales. J Adv Nurs. 1994;20:288–296.
    1. European pressure ulcer advisory panel (EPUAP) Pressure ulcer prevention guidelines. Oxford: EPUAP; 1999. (accessed 19 Aug 2002).
    1. Nixon J, McGough A. Principles of patient assessment: screening for pressure ulcers and potential risk. In: Morison M, editor. The prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. 1st ed. London: Mosby; 2001. pp. 55–74.
    1. Haalboom JR, den Boer J, Buskens E. Risk-assessment tools in the prevention of pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage. 1999;45:20–24.
    1. Edwards M. Pressure sore risk calculators: some methodological issues. J Clin Nurs. 1996;5:307–312.
    1. Hamilton F. An analysis of the literature pertaining to pressure sore risk-assessment scales. J Clin Nurs. 1992;1:185–193.
    1. Norton D, McLaren R, Exton-Smith AN. An investigation of geriatric nursing problems in hospital. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1975. Pressure sores.
    1. Bergstrom N, Braden BJ, Laguzza A, Holman V. The Braden scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Nurs Res. 1987;36:205–210.
    1. Waterlow J. Pressure sores: a risk assessment card. Nurs Times. 1985;81:49–55.
    1. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29–36.
    1. Harrell FE, Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996;15:361–387.
    1. Stotts NA. Risk of pressure ulcer development in surgical patients: a review of the literature. Adv Wound Care. 1999;12:127–136.
    1. Norton D. Calculating the risk: reflections on the Norton scale [Correction appeared in Decubitus 1989;2:10] Decubitus. 1989;2:24–31.
    1. Bergstrom N, Braden B, Kemp M, Champagne M, Ruby E. Predicting pressure ulcer risk: a multisite study of the predictive validity of the Braden scale. Nurs Res. 1998;47:261–269.
    1. Centraal Begeleidings Orgaan. Herziening consensus decubitus [Consensus pressure ulcers, revision]. Utrecht: CBO; 1992. . (In Dutch.)
    1. Beckrich K, Aronovitch SA. Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: a comparison of costs in medical vs. surgical patients. Nurs Econ. 1999;17:263–271.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren