R J van Marum1, M E Ooms, M W Ribbe, J T van Eijk. 1. Department of General Practice, Nursing Home Medicine and Social Medicine/Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. rvmarum@knmg.nl
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the usefulness of a Dutch pressure sore risk assessment scale--the Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing (CBO; National Organization for Quality Assurance in Hospitals) score--in the detection of patients at risk of developing pressure sores after admission to a nursing home. As the Norton score is the standard method of risk assessment, we also investigated which score (Norton or CBO) has the stronger relationship to the development of pressure sores. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort design. PATIENTS: 220 nursing home patients, 80 men, 140 women, mean age 79 years (standard deviation 3). MEASURES: Admission assessments for the presence of pressure sores, CBO and Norton scores, preventive measures and demographic characteristics. We made observations every week for 4 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Presence or absence of pressure sores. MAIN RESULTS: 54 patients (25%) developed a pressure sore. A significant, nonlinear relationship was found between the CBO score on admission and the development of pressure ulcers for the first 2 weeks after admission. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that only mobility (odds ratio = 3.6, P = 0.0001) and mental state (odds ratio = 2.0, P = 0.03) showed a significant relationship with the development of pressure ulcers. The CBO score was no better in risk assessment than the Norton score. CONCLUSIONS: The CBO score can be used for assessment of the risk of developing pressure ulcers in the first 2 weeks after admission to a nursing home, but is no better than the Norton score. Since the Norton score is easier to use, it is slightly preferable for use in this setting. However, neither score is a good indicator of patients at risk. Physicians should not depend solely on risk scores when prescribing preventive measures.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the usefulness of a Dutch pressure sore risk assessment scale--the Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing (CBO; National Organization for Quality Assurance in Hospitals) score--in the detection of patients at risk of developing pressure sores after admission to a nursing home. As the Norton score is the standard method of risk assessment, we also investigated which score (Norton or CBO) has the stronger relationship to the development of pressure sores. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort design. PATIENTS: 220 nursing home patients, 80 men, 140 women, mean age 79 years (standard deviation 3). MEASURES: Admission assessments for the presence of pressure sores, CBO and Norton scores, preventive measures and demographic characteristics. We made observations every week for 4 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Presence or absence of pressure sores. MAIN RESULTS: 54 patients (25%) developed a pressure sore. A significant, nonlinear relationship was found between the CBO score on admission and the development of pressure ulcers for the first 2 weeks after admission. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that only mobility (odds ratio = 3.6, P = 0.0001) and mental state (odds ratio = 2.0, P = 0.03) showed a significant relationship with the development of pressure ulcers. The CBO score was no better in risk assessment than the Norton score. CONCLUSIONS: The CBO score can be used for assessment of the risk of developing pressure ulcers in the first 2 weeks after admission to a nursing home, but is no better than the Norton score. Since the Norton score is easier to use, it is slightly preferable for use in this setting. However, neither score is a good indicator of patients at risk. Physicians should not depend solely on risk scores when prescribing preventive measures.
Authors: Patriek Mistiaen; Wilco Achterberg; Andre Ament; Ruud Halfens; Janneke Huizinga; Ken Montgomery; Henri Post; Anneke L Francke Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2008-01-07 Impact factor: 2.655