Jane Willock1, Laila Habiballah2, Deborah Long3, Kelli Palmer4, Denis Anthony5. 1. University of South Wales, United Kingdom. Electronic address: willock@tesco.net. 2. Irbid National University, Jordan. Electronic address: lailahabeeb2007@yahoo.com. 3. Griffith University, Australia. Electronic address: Debbie.Long2@health.qld.gov.au. 4. Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: Kelli.Palmer@health.qld.gov.au. 5. University of Leeds, United Kingdom; Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. Electronic address: d.anthony@leeds.ac.uk.
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the predictive ability of two risk assessment scales used in children. BACKGROUND: There are several risk assessment scales (RASs) employed in paediatric settings but most have been modified from adult scales such as the Braden Q whereas the Glamorgan was an example of a scale designed for children. METHODS: Using incidence data from 513 paediatric hospital admissions, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was employed to compare the two scales. The area under the curve (AUC) was the outcome of interest. RESULTS: The two scales were similar in this population in terms of area under the curve. Neonatal and paediatric intensive care were similar in terms of AUC for both scales but in general paediatric wards the Braden Q may be superior in predicting risk. CONCLUSION: Either scale could be used if the predictive ability was the outcome of interest. The scales appear to work well with neonatal, paediatric intensive care and general children's wards. However the Glamorgan scale is probably preferred by childrens' nurses as it is easy to use and designed for use in children. There is some suggestion that while the two scales are similar in intensive care, for general paediatrics the Braden Q may be the better scale.
AIMS: To compare the predictive ability of two risk assessment scales used in children. BACKGROUND: There are several risk assessment scales (RASs) employed in paediatric settings but most have been modified from adult scales such as the Braden Q whereas the Glamorgan was an example of a scale designed for children. METHODS: Using incidence data from 513 paediatric hospital admissions, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was employed to compare the two scales. The area under the curve (AUC) was the outcome of interest. RESULTS: The two scales were similar in this population in terms of area under the curve. Neonatal and paediatric intensive care were similar in terms of AUC for both scales but in general paediatric wards the Braden Q may be superior in predicting risk. CONCLUSION: Either scale could be used if the predictive ability was the outcome of interest. The scales appear to work well with neonatal, paediatric intensive care and general children's wards. However the Glamorgan scale is probably preferred by childrens' nurses as it is easy to use and designed for use in children. There is some suggestion that while the two scales are similar in intensive care, for general paediatrics the Braden Q may be the better scale.
Authors: Pablo García-Molina; Evelin Balaguer-López; Francisco Pedro García-Fernández; María de Los Ángeles Ferrera-Fernández; José María Blasco; José Verdú Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Mayara Kelly Moura Ferreira; Sabrina de Souza Gurgel; Francisca Elisângela Teixeira Lima; Maria Vera Lúcia Moreira Leitão Cardoso; Viviane Martins da Silva Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem Date: 2018-08-09