Literature DB >> 26179873

Comparing visual and objective skin assessment with pressure injury risk.

Caroline J Borzdynski1, William McGuiness2, Charne Miller3.   

Abstract

Contemporary approaches to pressure injury (PI) risk identification rely on the use of risk assessment tools and visual skin assessment. Objective biophysical measures that assess skin hydration, melanin, erythema and lipids have not been traditionally used in PI risk; however, these may prove useful as a risk assessment tool. The relationship between subjective visual assessments of skin condition, biophysical measures and PI risk warrants investigation. This study used a descriptive correlational design to examine the relationship between measures of skin hydration, colour (melanin and erythema) and lipids at PI-prone areas amongst geriatric persons (n = 38), obtained using biophysical skin measures and visual skin assessment. Twice daily measures of epidermal hydration, colour and lipids were assessed using the SD202 Skin Diagnostic (Courage + Khazaka GmBH, Cologne, Germany) over pressure-prone areas of the body of study participants over seven consecutive days. Concurrent visual assessment of skin hydration and colour was performed. Results obtained using the SD202 Skin Diagnostic were compared with results gathered from visual assessment and examined for their association with participants' PI risk based on scores of the Norton Risk Assessment Scale. While epidermal hydration and skin colour reading scores did not vary significantly over the data collection period, lipid readings could not be registered on any occasion. With the exception of skin dryness, skin parameters via both objective and subjective means had significant, positive correlations. Statistically significant correlations emerged between visual assessment of skin wetness at the sacrum (r = -0·441, P < 0·01) and ischia (r = -0·468, P < 0·01) and Norton Risk Assessment Scale scores. It was found that the objective assessment of epidermal hydration (skin wetness) was also significantly associated with PI risk at the sacrum (r = -0·528, P < 0·01), as well as the right ischia (r = -0·410, P < 0·05) and left ischia (r = -0·407, P < 0·05). Erythema, when assessed objectively, was significantly correlated with PI risk at the sacrum (r = -0·322, P < 0·05). Such findings indicating that the finer measures afforded by the SD202 Skin Diagnostic in the assessment of the subtle red hues displayed in erythematous skin may provide an additional advantage over traditional, clinician assessment.
© 2015 Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Erythema; Pressure injury; Pressure injury risk assessment; Skin hydration; Skin lipids

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26179873      PMCID: PMC7949774          DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12468

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


  39 in total

Review 1.  The aged epidermal permeability barrier: basis for functional abnormalities.

Authors:  Peter M Elias; Ruby Ghadially
Journal:  Clin Geriatr Med       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.076

Review 2.  MEASURE: A proposed assessment framework for developing best practice recommendations for wound assessment.

Authors:  David H Keast; C Keith Bowering; A Wayne Evans; Gerald L Mackean; Catherine Burrows; Lincoln D'Souza
Journal:  Wound Repair Regen       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.617

Review 3.  Pressure ulcer grading tools: how reliable are they?

Authors:  A Sharp
Journal:  J Wound Care       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.072

Review 4.  Prevention and treatment of moisture-associated skin damage (maceration) in the periwound skin.

Authors:  Mikel Gray; Dorothy Weir
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.741

5.  Surface electrical capacitance as an index of epidermal barrier properties of composite skin substitutes and skin autografts.

Authors:  M J Goretsky; A P Supp; D G Greenhalgh; G D Warden; S T Boyce
Journal:  Wound Repair Regen       Date:  1995 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 3.617

6.  Category I pressure ulcers: how reliable is clinical assessment?

Authors:  E Sterner; C Lindholm; E Berg; A Stark; B Fossum
Journal:  Orthop Nurs       Date:  2011 May-Jun       Impact factor: 0.913

Review 7.  Pressure ulcer prevention and management: the current evidence for care.

Authors:  Mary C Arnold
Journal:  AACN Clin Issues       Date:  2003-11

8.  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

9.  An interrater reliability study of the assessment of pressure ulcer risk using the Braden scale and the classification of pressure ulcers in a home care setting.

Authors:  Jan Kottner; Ruud Halfens; Theo Dassen
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2009-04-29       Impact factor: 5.837

10.  Pressure ulcers: prevention, evaluation, and management.

Authors:  Daniel Bluestein; Ashkan Javaheri
Journal:  Am Fam Physician       Date:  2008-11-15       Impact factor: 3.292

View more
  2 in total

1.  Critical biomechanical and clinical insights concerning tissue protection when positioning patients in the operating room: A scoping review.

Authors:  Amit Gefen; Sue Creehan; Joyce Black
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-06-04       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  Sub-epidermal moisture measurement: an evidence-based approach to the assessment for early evidence of pressure ulcer presence.

Authors:  Aglecia Moda Vitoriano Budri; Zena Moore; Declan Patton; Tom O'Connor; Linda Nugent; Pinar Avsar
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-07-19       Impact factor: 3.315

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.