Literature DB >> 25224688

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

Li-Hua Wang1, Hong-Lin Chen2, Hong-Yan Yan1, Jian-Hua Gao1, Fang Wang1, Yue Ming1, Li Lu1, Jing-Jing Ding1.   

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

Entities:  

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

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25224688      PMCID: PMC7950447          DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12376

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Wound J        ISSN: 1742-4801            Impact factor:   3.315


  15 in total

Review 1.  Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review.

Authors:  Pedro L Pancorbo-Hidalgo; Francisco Pedro Garcia-Fernandez; Isabel Ma Lopez-Medina; Carmen Alvarez-Nieto
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.187

2.  Calculating the risk: reflections on the Norton Scale. 1989.

Authors:  D Norton
Journal:  Adv Wound Care       Date:  1996 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Benchmarking to the international pressure ulcer prevalence survey.

Authors:  Sharon House; Tracey Giles; John Whitcomb
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  2011 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.741

4.  The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk.

Authors:  N Bergstrom; B J Braden; A Laguzza; V Holman
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  1987 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.381

5.  Pressure sores: a risk assessment card.

Authors:  J Waterlow
Journal:  Nurs Times       Date:  1985 Nov 27-Dec 3

6.  The cost of pressure ulcers in the UK.

Authors:  Gerry Bennett; Carol Dealey; John Posnett
Journal:  Age Ageing       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 10.668

7.  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.

Authors:  Jan Kottner; Theo Dassen
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2009-12-08       Impact factor: 5.837

8.  Results of nine international pressure ulcer prevalence surveys: 1989 to 2005.

Authors:  Catherine Vangilder; Gordon D Macfarlane; Stephanie Meyer
Journal:  Ostomy Wound Manage       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.629

9.  The cost of pressure ulcers in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  C Dealey; J Posnett; A Walker
Journal:  J Wound Care       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.072

10.  Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales; Cubbin and Jackson, Braden, and Douglas scale.

Authors:  R N Jun Seongsook; R N Jeong Ihnsook; R N Lee Younghee
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.837

View more
  5 in total

1.  A Feasibility Study of Intermittent Electrical Stimulation to Prevent Deep Tissue Injury in the Intensive Care Unit.

Authors:  Angela Kane; Robyn Warwaruk-Rogers; Chester Ho; Ming Chan; Richard Stein; Vivian K Mushahwar; Sean P Dukelow
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 4.730

2.  In-Hospital Mobility Variations Across Primary Diagnoses Among Older Adults.

Authors:  Vincenzo Valiani; Shiyao Gao; Zhiguo Chen; Sunil Swami; Christopher A Harle; Gigi Lipori; Sandrine Sourdet; Samuel Wu; Susan G Nayfield; Carlo Sabbá; Marco Pahor; Todd M Manini
Journal:  J Am Med Dir Assoc       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 4.669

3.  Mechanisms of human amniotic epithelial cell transplantation in treating stage III pressure ulcer in a rat model.

Authors:  Aiting Zhou; Xilan Zheng; Limei Yu; Mingtao Quan; Xing Shao; Zhixia Jiang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 2.447

4.  Prognostic Value of Braden Activity Subscale for Mobility Status in Hospitalized Older Adults.

Authors:  Vincenzo Valiani; Zhiguo Chen; Gigi Lipori; Marco Pahor; Carlo Sabbá; Todd M Manini
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 2.960

5.  Can Waterlow score predict 30-day mortality and length of stay in acutely admitted medical patients (aged ≥65 years)? Evidence from a single centre prospective cohort study.

Authors:  James Wei Wang; Phillip Smith; Shah-Jalal Sarker; Sophie Elands; Amelia Oliveira; Claire Barratt; Chris Thorn; Tom Holme; Mary Lynch
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.