Literature DB >> 27038340

Inter-Rater Agreement of Pressure Ulcer Risk and Prevention Measures in the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators(®) (NDNQI).

Shirley Moore Waugh1, Sandra Bergquist-Beringer2.   

Abstract

In this descriptive multi-site study, we examined inter-rater agreement on 11 National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators(®) (NDNQI(®) ) pressure ulcer (PrU) risk and prevention measures. One hundred twenty raters at 36 hospitals captured data from 1,637 patient records. At each hospital, agreement between the most experienced rater and each other team rater was calculated for each measure. In the ratings studied, 528 patients were rated as "at risk" for PrU and, therefore, were included in calculations of agreement for the prevention measures. Prevalence-adjusted kappa (PAK) was used to interpret inter-rater agreement because prevalence of single responses was high. The PAK values for eight measures indicated "substantial" to "near perfect" agreement between most experienced and other team raters: Skin assessment on admission (.977, 95% CI [.966-.989]), PrU risk assessment on admission (.978, 95% CI [.964-.993]), Time since last risk assessment (.790, 95% CI [.729-.852]), Risk assessment method (.997, 95% CI [.991-1.0]), Risk status (.877, 95% CI [.838-.917]), Any prevention (.856, 95% CI [.76-.943]), Skin assessment (.956, 95% CI [.904-1.0]), and Pressure-redistribution surface use (.839, 95% CI [.763-.916]). For three intervention measures, PAK values fell below the recommended value of ≥.610: Routine repositioning (.577, 95% CI [.494-.661]), Nutritional support (.500, 95% CI [.418-.581]), and Moisture management (.556, 95% CI [.469-.643]). Areas of disagreement were identified. Findings provide support for the reliability of 8 of the 11 measures. Further clarification of data collection procedures is needed to improve reliability for the less reliable measures.
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  decubitus ulcer; inter-rater reliability; measurement; nursing performance appraisal; nursing process; quality assurance/patient safety

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27038340     DOI: 10.1002/nur.21717

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Nurs Health        ISSN: 0160-6891            Impact factor:   2.228


  4 in total

1.  A pressure ulcer and fall rate quality composite index for acute care units: A measure development study.

Authors:  Diane K Boyle; Ananda Jayawardhana; Mary E Burman; Nancy E Dunton; Vincent S Staggs; Sandra Bergquist-Beringer; Byron J Gajewski
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 5.837

2.  Effect of preventive care interventions on pressure ulcer rates in a national sample of rural and urban nursing units: Longitudinal associations over 4 years.

Authors:  Marianne Baernholdt; Guofen Yan; Ivora D Hinton; Emily Cramer; Nancy Dunton
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 5.837

3.  Relationship of Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Certified Nurses and Healthcare-Acquired Conditions in Acute Care Hospitals.

Authors:  Diane K Boyle; Sandra Bergquist-Beringer; Emily Cramer
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  2017 May/Jun       Impact factor: 1.741

4.  Reliability of Pressure Ulcer Rates: How Precisely Can We Differentiate Among Hospital Units, and Does the Standard Signal-Noise Reliability Measure Reflect This Precision?

Authors:  Vincent S Staggs; Emily Cramer
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 2.228

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.