BACKGROUND: Pressure mapping systems offer a new technology to assist with pressure care assessment. Data output from such systems can be presented in three forms: numerical data, a three-dimensional grid and a colour-coded pressure map. OBJECTIVES: To (1) investigate whether sole use of the pressure map was a reliable method of interpreting interface pressures when compared with use of the numerical data; (2) establish the inter- and intra-rater reliability of using pressure maps to assess pressure and determine whether reliability depended upon system operator experience; and (3) examine whether reliability extended to the range of seating surfaces being tested. DESIGN: A reliability study assessing the ranking of pressure maps recorded by the Force Sensing Array pressure mapping system. SETTING: A university occupational therapy department and a community NHS trust. SUBJECTS: Fifteen occupational therapists with experience in pressure mapping and 50 occupational therapy students with no practical experience of pressure mapping. INTERVENTIONS: Two sets of pressure maps were pre-recorded with an able-bodied adult seated on a variety of surfaces, with maps on each individual surface recorded over a 20-minute period at 2-minute intervals. Subjects ranked both sets of maps in terms of 'best to poorest' distribution of pressure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rank orders of (1) pressure maps; (2) average interface pressures (mmHg); (3) maximum interface pressures (mmHg). RESULTS: The use of pressure maps to interpret interface pressures was a reliable method. Significant agreement existed within (p < 0.001) and between groups of operators and reliability extended over the range of seating surfaces tested. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of using pressure maps to interpret interface pressures in seating as opposed to using the associated numerical data can be supported. This was shown to be a reliable method of assessment by both experienced and less experienced operators across a range of seating surfaces.
BACKGROUND: Pressure mapping systems offer a new technology to assist with pressure care assessment. Data output from such systems can be presented in three forms: numerical data, a three-dimensional grid and a colour-coded pressure map. OBJECTIVES: To (1) investigate whether sole use of the pressure map was a reliable method of interpreting interface pressures when compared with use of the numerical data; (2) establish the inter- and intra-rater reliability of using pressure maps to assess pressure and determine whether reliability depended upon system operator experience; and (3) examine whether reliability extended to the range of seating surfaces being tested. DESIGN: A reliability study assessing the ranking of pressure maps recorded by the Force Sensing Array pressure mapping system. SETTING: A university occupational therapy department and a community NHS trust. SUBJECTS: Fifteen occupational therapists with experience in pressure mapping and 50 occupational therapy students with no practical experience of pressure mapping. INTERVENTIONS: Two sets of pressure maps were pre-recorded with an able-bodied adult seated on a variety of surfaces, with maps on each individual surface recorded over a 20-minute period at 2-minute intervals. Subjects ranked both sets of maps in terms of 'best to poorest' distribution of pressure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rank orders of (1) pressure maps; (2) average interface pressures (mmHg); (3) maximum interface pressures (mmHg). RESULTS: The use of pressure maps to interpret interface pressures was a reliable method. Significant agreement existed within (p < 0.001) and between groups of operators and reliability extended over the range of seating surfaces tested. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of using pressure maps to interpret interface pressures in seating as opposed to using the associated numerical data can be supported. This was shown to be a reliable method of assessment by both experienced and less experienced operators across a range of seating surfaces.
Authors: Holly Wong; Jaime Kaufman; Barry Baylis; John M Conly; David B Hogan; Henry T Stelfox; Danielle A Southern; William A Ghali; Chester H Ho Journal: Trials Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Christine M Olney; Tamara Vos-Draper; Jason Egginton; John Ferguson; Gary Goldish; Byron Eddy; Andrew H Hansen; Katherine Carroll; Melissa Morrow Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 1.985