Literature DB >> 19471048

A prospective study evaluating the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH Tool) to assess stage II, stage III, and stage IV pressure ulcers.

Ulkü Yapucu Günes1.   

Abstract

Many valid and reliable tools and techniques are available for wound measurement. However, few prospective clinical studies assessing these instruments have been conducted. A prospective, methodological study was conducted between September 2006 and November 2007 to evaluate use of the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) version 3 in patients with one or more pressure ulcer. A convenience sample of 72 persons (mean age 66.9 +/- 12.8 years) with 86 pressure ulcers (49% Stage II, 47% Stage III, and 4% Stage IV) was recruited and assessed weekly until healing, transfer, patient death, or end of study for a maximum of 8 weeks. Most ulcers (77%) were in the sacral area and 56% had been present for 1 month or longer. Repeated measures analysis revealed that PUSH total scores decreased significantly (P < 0.001) over the 8-week study, with significant differences in PUSH total scores between healed and unhealed ulcers each week, starting on week 1. The total PUSH score as well as the length x width item in the tool accurately differentiated between healed and nonhealed ulcers. Although the PUSH tool is practical, easy-to-use, and generally sensitive to change, some modifications would improve its value--ie, a wound size/depth subscale. Additional studies to help clinicians more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of their interventions, including studies to determine whether wound measurements alone may suffice to monitor healing, are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19471048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ostomy Wound Manage        ISSN: 0889-5899            Impact factor:   2.629


  6 in total

1.  A prospective study of the PUSH tool in diabetic foot ulcers.

Authors:  Sue E Gardner; Stephen L Hillis; Rita A Frantz
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.741

2.  Reliability of the Bates-Jensen wound assessment tool for pressure injury assessment: The pressure ulcer detection study.

Authors:  Barbara M Bates-Jensen; Heather E McCreath; Deniz Harputlu; Anabel Patlan
Journal:  Wound Repair Regen       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 3.617

Review 3.  On the Cutting Edge: Wound Care for the Endovascular Specialist.

Authors:  Brandon Olivieri; Timothy E Yates; Sofia Vianna; Omosalewa Adenikinju; Robert E Beasley; Jon Houseworth
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 1.513

4.  Effects of topical oxygen therapy on chronic traumatic wounds and its impact on granulation tissue.

Authors:  Zhihong Song; Xiaojuan Guo; Xiaoli Zhang
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 4.060

5.  Validity and reliability of a pressure ulcer monitoring tool for persons with spinal cord impairment.

Authors:  Susan S Thomason; Stephen L Luther; Gail M Powell-Cope; Jeffrey J Harrow; Polly Palacios
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 1.985

6.  Community-based InterVentions to prevent serIous Complications (CIVIC) following spinal cord injury in Bangladesh: protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Mohammad S Hossain; Lisa A Harvey; Md Akhlasur Rahman; Stephen Muldoon; Jocelyn L Bowden; Md Shofiqul Islam; Stephen Jan; Valerie Taylor; Ian D Cameron; Harvinder Singh Chhabra; Richard I Lindley; Fin Biering-Sørensen; Qiang Li; Murali Dhakshinamurthy; Robert D Herbert
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.