Literature DB >> 26246703

Risk Assessment Tool for Pressure Ulcer Development in Indian Surgical Wards.

Sushma Kumari1, Deborshi Sharma2, Anshika Rana1, Reetesh Pathak3, Romesh Lal1, Ajay Kumar1, U C Biswal3.   

Abstract

The aims of this paper were to compare the predictive validity of three pressure ulcer (PU) risk scales-the Norton scale, the Braden scale, and the Waterlow scale-and to choose the most appropriate calculator for predicting PU risk in surgical wards of India. This is an observational prospective cohort study in a tertiary educational hospital in New Delhi among 100 surgical ward patients from April to July 2011. The main outcomes measured included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PVP) and negative predictive value (PVN), and the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the three PU risk assessment scales. Based on the cutoff points found most appropriate in this study, the sensitivity, specificity, PVP, and PVN were as follows: the Norton scale (cutoff, 16) had the values of 95.6, 93.5, 44.8, and 98.6, respectively; the Braden scale (cutoff, 17) had values of 100, 89.6, 42.5, and 100, respectively; and the Waterlow scale (cutoff, 11) had 91.3, 84.4, 38.8, and 97, respectively. According to the ROC curve, the Norton scale is the most appropriate tool. Factors such as physical condition, activity, mobility, body mass index (BMI), nutrition, friction, and shear are extremely significant in determining risk of PU development (p < 0.0001). The Norton scale is most effective in predicting PU risk in Indian surgical wards. BMI, mobility, activity, nutrition, friction, and shear are the most significant factors in Indian surgical ward settings with necessity for future comparison with established scales.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Braden scale; Norton scale; Predictor of pressure ulcer; Pressure ulcer; Waterlow scale

Year:  2012        PMID: 26246703      PMCID: PMC4522249          DOI: 10.1007/s12262-012-0779-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Surg        ISSN: 0973-9793            Impact factor:   0.656


  25 in total

1.  Which pressure ulcer risk assessment scales are valid for use in the clinical setting?

Authors:  Laura Bolton
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.741

2.  Reliability and validity of the Braden Scale for predicting pressure ulcer risk.

Authors:  Daria L Kring
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.741

Review 3.  Pressure sores in the elderly: can this outcome be improved?

Authors:  D M Smith; D K Winsemius; R W Besdine
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1991 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Pressure sores: a risk assessment card.

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

5.  Patient risk factors for pressure ulcers during cardiac surgery.

Authors:  L J Lewicki; L Mion; K G Splane; D Samstag; M Secic
Journal:  AORN J       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 0.676

6.  The reliability of pressure sore risk-assessment tools.

Authors:  K MacDonald
Journal:  Prof Nurse       Date:  1995-12

7.  Pressure ulcer incidence in an acute care setting.

Authors:  B Olson; D Langemo; C Burd; D Hanson; S Hunter; T Cathcart-Silberberg
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 1.741

8.  Inter-rater reliability and Waterlow's pressure ulcer risk assessment tool.

Authors:  Jennifer Kelly
Journal:  Nurs Stand       Date:  2005 Apr 20-26

9.  The financial costs of inpatient pressure ulcers to an acute care facility.

Authors:  V Alterescu
Journal:  Decubitus       Date:  1989-08

10.  Health status utilities and the impact of pressure ulcers in long-term care residents in Ontario.

Authors:  Hla-Hla Thein; Tara Gomes; Murray D Krahn; Walter P Wodchis
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.