Predictive validity of the Braden Scale,Norton Scale,and Waterlow Scale in the Czech Republic

The aim of this study was to determine the predictive validity of the Braden, Norton, and Waterlow scales in 2 long‐term care departments in the Czech Republic. Assessing the risk for developing pressure ulcers is the first step in their prevention. At present, many scales are used in clinical practice, but most of them have not been properly validated yet (for example, the Modified Norton Scale in the Czech Republic). In the Czech Republic, only the Braden Scale has been validated so far. This is a prospective comparative instrument testing study. A random sample of 123 patients was recruited. The predictive validity of the pressure ulcer risk assessment scales was evaluated based on sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The data were collected from April to August 2014. In the present study, the best predictive validity values were observed for the Norton Scale, followed by the Braden Scale and the Waterlow Scale, in that order. We recommended that the above 3 pressure ulcer risk assessment scales continue to be evaluated in the Czech clinical setting.     

Braden评估表在神经内科卧床患者压疮预防中的应用

目的评价Braden评估表对神经内科卧床患者压疮的预测效果,探讨压疮分组预防措施效果。方法选取400例新人院、首次评估无压疮的神经内科卧床患者,应用Braden评估表动态评估发生压疮的危险性,将400例患者按评分分为高危、中危、低危及无危组4组各100例,并分别将高危、中危、低危组随机分为实验组和对照组各50例;对照组采取常规干预措施,高危实验组使用气垫床,中危实验组使用海绵床垫,低危实验组每4h翻身1次,其他预防措施同对照组,无危险组不采取任何干预措施。结果Braden评估表在首次和末次评分时ROC曲线下面积分别为0．771和0．828,诊断界值取17分时其对应灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值等指标均能达到较高水平。在分组干预中,高、中、低危实验组分别与对照组比较,各组压疮发生率均无显著差异。结论Braden评估表对神经内科卧床患者压疮发生有较好的预测效果,17分是较理想的诊断界值。对神经内科压疮高危者采用气垫床、中度危险者采用海绵垫,压疮发生率降低不显著。低危者可采取每4h翻身1次的方法以减少资源的消耗。     

Non-blanchable erythema as an indicator for the need for pressure ulcer prevention: a randomized-controlled trial

Aims and objectives. To evaluate whether postponing preventive measures until non‐blanchable erythema appears will actually lead to an increase in incidence of pressure ulcers (grades 2–4) when compared with the standard risk assessment method. Background. To distinguish patients at risk for pressure ulcers from those not at risk, risk assessment scales are recommended. These scales have limited predictive validity. The prevention of further deterioration of non‐blanchable erythema (grade 1 pressure ulcer) instead of the standard way of assigning prevention could be a possible new approach. Design. Randomized‐controlled trial. Methods. Patients admitted to surgical, internal or geriatric wards (n = 1617) were included. They were randomly assigned to an experimental and a control group. In the experimental group (n = 826), prevention was started when non‐blanchable erythema appeared, in the control group (n = 791) when the Braden score was <17 or when non‐blanchable erythema appeared. In both groups, patients received identical prevention, either by using a polyethylene–urethane mattress in combination with turning every four hours or by using an alternating pressure air mattress. Pressure points were observed daily and classified according to the four grades of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. The Braden scale was scored every three days. Results. In the experimental group, 16% of patients received preventive measures, in the control group 32%. The pressure ulcer incidence (grades 2–4) was not significantly different between the experimental (6·8%) and control group (6·7%). Conclusion. Significantly fewer patients need preventive measures when prevention is postponed until non‐blanchable erythema appears and those patients did not develop more pressure ulcers than patients who received prevention based on the standard risk assessment method. Relevance to clinical practice. Using the appearance of non‐blanchable erythema to allocate preventive measures leads to a considerable reduction of patients in need of prevention without resulting in an increase in pressure ulcers.     

Braden评估表在神经内科卧床患者压疮预防中的应用

目的 评价Braden评估表对神经内科卧床患者压疮的预测效果,探讨压疮分组预防措施效果.方法 选取400例新人院、首次评估无压疮的神经内科卧床患者,应用Braden评估表动态评估发生压疮的危险性,将400例患者按评分分为高危、中危、低危及无危组4组各100例,并分别将高危、中危、低危组随机分为实验组和对照组各50例;对照组采取常规干预措施,高危实验组使用气垫床,中危实验组使用海绵床垫,低危实验组每4 h翻身1次,其他预防措施同对照组,无危险组不采取任何干预措施.结果 Braden评估表在首次和末次评分时ROC曲线下面积分别为0.771和0.828,诊断界值取17分时其对应灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值等指标均能达到较高水平.在分组干预中,高、中、低危实验组分别与对照组比较,各组压疮发生率均无显著差异.结论 Braden评估表对神经内科卧床患者压疮发生有较好的预测效果,17分是较理想的诊断界值.对神经内科压疮高危者采用气挚床、中度危险者采用海绵垫,压疮发生率降低不显著.低危者可采取每4 h翻身1次的方法以减少资源的消耗.     

Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review

AIM: This paper reports a systematic review conducted to determine the effectiveness of the use of risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention in clinical practice, degree of validation of risk assessment scales, and effectiveness of risk assessment scales as indicators of risk of developing a pressure ulcer. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are an important health problem. The best strategy to avoid them is prevention. There are several risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention which complement nurses' clinical judgement. However, some of these have not undergone proper validation. METHOD: A systematic bibliographical review was conducted, based on a search of 14 databases in four languages using the keywords pressure ulcer or pressure sore or decubitus ulcer and risk assessment. Reports of clinical trials or prospective studies of validation were included in the review. FINDINGS: Thirty-three studies were included in the review, three on clinical effectiveness and the rest on scale validation. There is no decrease in pressure ulcer incidence was found which might be attributed to use of an assessment scale. However, the use of scales increases the intensity and effectiveness of prevention interventions. The Braden Scale shows optimal validation and the best sensitivity/specificity balance (57.1%/67.5%, respectively); its score is a good pressure ulcer risk predictor (odds ratio = 4.08, CI 95% = 2.56-6.48). The Norton Scale has reasonable scores for sensitivity (46.8%), specificity (61.8%) and risk prediction (OR = 2.16, CI 95% = 1.03-4.54). The Waterlow Scale offers a high sensitivity score (82.4%), but low specificity (27.4%); with a good risk prediction score (OR = 2.05, CI 95% = 1.11-3.76). Nurses' clinical judgement (only considered in three studies) gives moderate scores for sensitivity (50.6%) and specificity (60.1%), but is not a good pressure ulcer risk predictor (OR = 1.69, CI 95% = 0.76-3.75). CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that the use of risk assessment scales decreases pressure ulcer incidence. The Braden Scale offers the best balance between sensitivity and specificity and the best risk estimate. Both the Braden and Norton Scales are more accurate than nurses' clinical judgement in predicting pressure ulcer risk.     

3种压疮危险评估量表在老年患者中应用的信效度研究

目的 比较和评价Norton、Braden和Waterlow 3种压疮危险评估量表在老年患者中应用的信效度.方法 选取某三级甲等医院老年患者271例,运用3种量表连续评估患者的压疮危险,以Cronbach's α系数、内容效度指数、因子分析、ROC曲线等方法评价和比较各量表的信效度.结果Norton、Braden、Watedow量表的内部一致性信度分别为0.71、0.79、0.32;内容效度指数分别为0.85、0.91、0.87;因子分析得到的方差累计贡献率分别为71.73%、70.34%、65.76%;灵敏度和特异度分别为(0.75、0.62)、(0.74、0.59)、(0.86、0.59).结论 Waterlow量表的内部一致性信度低,但预测能力最好;Braden量表的信效度均高,但预测能力偏低.     

Validation of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: a critique

AIM: The aim of this paper is to present critical analysis of the validation methods of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales. BACKGROUND: The validation of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales remains a topic of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Braden scale and Norton scale are the most frequently used. Sensitivity and specificity are the recommended and most commonly used epidemiological tools to evaluate the validity of those risk assessment scales. DISCUSSION: The use of preventive measures influences both the sensitivity and specificity of the scales. Analysis of published studies on risk assessment scales reveals that, although some patients received preventive measures and others did not, this was not taken into account. Consequently, generalization of those results is not possible. Some possible alternative designs for studying the validity of risk assessment scales are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available risk assessment scales are of only limited value, and there use will result in many patients being falsely identified as at risk or not at risk. Sensitivity and specificity criteria are not the most appropriate tools to validate risk assessment scales. A risk assessment scale should be evaluated in combination with the preventive measures used.     

Assessing predictive validity of the modified Braden scale for prediction of pressure ulcer risk of orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting

Aims and objectives. To assess and compare the predictive validity of the modified Braden and Braden scales and to identify which of the modified Braden subscales are predictive in assessing pressure ulcer risk among orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting. Background. Although the Braden scale has better predictive validity, literature has suggested that it can be used in conjunction with other pressure ulcer risk calculators or that some other subscales be added. To increase the predictive power of the Braden scale, a modified Braden scale by adding body build for height and skin type and excluding nutrition was developed. Design. A prospective cohort study. Method. A total of 197 subjects in a 106‐bed orthopaedic department of an acute care hospital in Hong Kong were assessed for their risk for pressure ulcer development by the modified Braden and Braden scales. Subsequently, daily skin assessment was performed to detect pressure ulcers. Cases were closed when pressure ulcers were detected. Results. Out of 197 subjects, 18 patients (9·1%) developed pressure ulcers. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the modified Braden scale was 0·736 and for the Braden scale was 0·648. The modified Braden cut‐off score of 19 showed the best balance of sensitivity (89%) and specificity (62%). Sensory perception (Beta = ?1·544, OR=0·214, p = 0·016), body build for height (Beta = ?0·755, OR = 0·470, p = 0·030) and skin type (Beta = ?1·527, OR = 0·217, p = 0·002) were significantly predictive of pressure ulcer development. Conclusion. The modified Braden scale is more predictive of pressure ulcer development than the Braden scale. Relevance to clinical practice. The modified Braden scale can be adopted for predicting pressure ulcer development among orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting. Specific nursing interventions should be provided, with special attention paid to orthopaedic patients with impaired sensory perception, poor skin type and abnormal body build for height.     

2种压疮评估量表在患儿中的应用研究

目的 评价并比较Braden Q和Braden 2种压疮评估量表在儿科重症患者中的应用效果,探索区分患儿发生压疮风险的临界值.方法 采用多中心前瞻性队列研究设计,研究地点为3家儿童医院的重症监护室,派遣2名临床护士充当数据收集员,分别负责量表评分和皮肤评估,两者分别独立进行.结果 本次研究收集样本145例,实际发生压疮9例,发生率为6.2%.Braden Q量表和Braden量表的预测临界值分别是17分和14分;而两者的ROC曲线(受试者工作特征曲线)下面积分别为0.481和0.398.结论 Braden Q量表更加适用于儿科患者,且需要进一步研究改进量表.     

Interrater reliability using Modified Norton Scale, Pressure Ulcer Card, Short Form-Mini Nutritional Assessment by registered and enrolled nurses in clinical practice

Aim. Examine the interrater reliability between and among registered and enrolled nurses using Modified Norton Scale, Pressure Ulcer Card and Short Form‐Mini Nutritional Assessment. Background. In Sweden, registered nurses and enrolled nurses usually co‐operate in patient care. National guidelines emphasize that reliable and valid assessment tools should be used. Interrater reliability for regular use of assessment tools is seldom studied. Design cross‐sectional. Registered nurses and enrolled nurses made 228 assessments of patients’ skin, risk for pressure ulcer and malnutrition, in patients with hip fracture and patients who had suffered a stroke. Results. The interrater reliability of the Modified Norton Score total score was very good among registered nurses, good among enrolled nurses and between both groups. There was good, moderate and fair agreement on the subscales. Interrater reliability of Short Form Mini‐Nutritional Assesment screening score was very good between both groups, good among registered nurses and moderate among enrolled nurses. There was good and moderate agreement on the items. There was good, moderate and fair agreement between and among registered nurses and enrolled nurses when using the Pressure Ulcer Card. Conclusion. The Modified Norton Scale and Short Form Mini‐Nutritional Assessment were reasonably understandable and easy to utilize in clinical care. Therefore, it seems possible for nurses to accomplish assessment using these tools. The agreement level was low for most skin sites except sacrum when nurses assessed patients’ skin with the Pressure Ulcer Card. Relevance to clinical practice. The utilize of reliable and valid assessment tools is important in clinical practice. The tools could be used as an aid to the clinical judgement and therefore identify patients at risk for pressure ulcers and malnutrition. Pressure ulcer grading is a difficult skill that requires training and time to develop.     

Establishing the validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: a novel approach using illustrated patient scenarios.

Preventing pressure ulcers is an important nursing goal and over the years a number of risk assessment scales (RASs) have been developed to expedite clinical judgement. The aim of this study was to examine the validity of the three most commonly used RASs compared to nurses' own clinical judgement. Patient simulations were presented to 236 clinical nurses. Nine hundred and forty one assessments were completed and compared to the ratings from a panel of tissue viability experts. Clinical judgement exactly matched expert opinion (69.1%) more often than assessment with any of the RASs. The Waterlow Score matched exactly in 20% of cases, the Braden Scale in 8.5% of cases and the Norton Score in 4.6% of cases. Thus none of these RASs can be considered valid, assuming that the expert panel genuinely reflected the 'gold standard' in terms of the external criterion. The implications for clinical practice are far-reaching considering the extent to which RASs are currently used to reach important clinical decisions relating to the deployment of expensive pressure-relieving aids and nursing time.     

Pressure ulcer risk assessment immediately after cardiac surgery – does it make a difference? A comparison of three pressure ulcer risk assessment instruments within a cardiac surgery population

The intensive care unit (ICU) population has a high risk of developing pressure ulcers. According to several national expert guidelines for pressure ulcer prevention, a risk assessment for every situation in which the patient's condition is changing should be performed using a standardized risk assessment instrument. The aims of this study were to (a) assess the number of patients who are 'at risk' for the development of pressure ulcer according to three commonly used risk assessment instruments in the intermediate period after cardiac surgery procedures, (b) assess which instrument best fits the situation of the ICU patients and c) decide if 'static' risk assessment with an instrument should be recommended. The modified Norton scale, the Braden scale and the 4-factor model were used in a convenience sample of 53 patients to assess the risk for development of pressure ulcer in the first 5 days (in ICU) after cardiac surgery procedures. The number of patients at risk were >60% by the 4-factor model, >70% by the modified Norton scale and >80% by the Braden scale. Sensitivity and specificity in all scales were not satisfactory. Forty-nine per cent (n= 26) of the patients developed a pressure ulcer in the operating room, 13% (n= 7) up to day 5 in the cardiac surgery ICU. Only 1.9% (n= 1) of the pressure ulcers were stage 2. The study concluded that the patients in the cardiac surgery ICU can be identified as at risk during the first 5 days after surgical procedure without continuously using a standardized risk assessment instrument in every changing condition. Individual risk assessment by a standardized risk assessment instrument is only recommended to enable initiation of preventive measures based on patient-specific risk factors.     

Examining the validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: a replication study

Risk assessment scales (RASs) intended to identify patients most at risk of developing pressure ulcers have been widely used for many years. Numerous studies have evaluated their predictive validity but potential bias has been inherent in the design of all. To overcome these problems a simulation study was conducted in which clinical nurses were asked to identify the degree of risk experienced by four patients employing the three RASs discussed most frequently in the literature (Norton, Braden and Waterlow Scores). These findings were compared with nurses' clinical judgment rated on a visual analogue scale. The simulations consisted of high-resolution photographs accompanied by case studies of the patients. The nurses' scores were compared to estimates of risk generated by an expert panel. Nurses' clinical judgment agreed much more closely with expert opinion than any of the RASs. A replication study was undertaken to confirm these findings. One hundred and fifteen nurses participated in replication. Again the nurses' clinical judgment matched expert opinion much more closely than the results of the RASs. Replication also drew attention to a number of methodological issues which deserve consideration when using simulation to test the effectiveness of clinical tools and the need to establish adequate measures of external validity whenever use of this method is contemplated.     

The impact of pressure ulcer risk assessment on patient outcomes among hospitalised patients

Aims and objectives. To determine whether use of a risk assessment scale reduces nosocomial pressure ulcers. Background. There is contradictory evidence concerning the validity of risk assessment scales. The interaction of education, clinical judgement and use of risk assessment scales has not been fully explored. It is not known which of these is most important, nor whether combining them results in better patient care. Design. Pretest–posttest comparison. Methods. A risk assessment scale namely the Braden was implemented in a group of wards after appropriate education and training of staff in addition to mandatory wound care study days. Another group of staff received the same education programme but did not implement the risk assessment scale and a third group carried on with mandatory study days only. Results. Nosocomial Pressure Ulcer was reduced in all three groups, but the group that implemented the risk assessment scale showed no significant additional improvement. Allowing for age, gender, medical speciality, level of risk and other factors did not explain this lack of improvement. Clinical judgement seemed to be used by nurses to identify patients at high risk to implement appropriate risk reduction strategies such as use of pressure relieving beds. Clinical judgement was not significantly different from the risk assessment scale score in terms of risk evaluation. Conclusions. It is questioned whether the routine use of a risk assessment scale is useful in reducing nosocomial pressure ulcer. It is suggested clinical judgement is as effective as a risk assessment scale in terms of assessing risk (though neither show good sensitivity and specificity) and determining appropriate care. Relevance to clinical practice. Clinical judgement may be as effective as employing a risk assessment scale to assess the risk of pressure ulcers. If this were true it would be simpler and release nursing time for other tasks.     

自制神经外科压疮危险因素评估量表与Braden量表信度与效度的比较研究

目的 更准确地评估神经外科患者发生压疮的危险性,降低压疮发生率.方法 采用两个评估量表(即自制神经外科压疮危险因素评估量表和Braden量表)评估500例神经外科患者的压疮危险因素,并进行信度和效度的比较.结果 自制神经外科压疮危险因素评估量表的Cronbach's α为0.941,Braden量表的Cronbach's α为0.743.因子分析结果显示,两个量表的结构效度与原设想的基本一致.预测效度显示,当自制神经外科压疮危险因素评估量表的诊断界值取16分时,灵敏度和特异度分别为89%和78%;当Braden量表取18分时,灵敏度和特异度分别为78%和58%.结论 两种量表均具有较好的内部一致性信度、结构效度和预测效度,但自制神经外科压疮危险因素评估量表优于Braden量表,是适合神经外科患者人群的压疮危险评估工具.     

两种压疮评估表在外科长期卧床患者中的应用效果比较

目的:比较我院自行研制的压疮危险评估量表(SPURAS)与Braden评估量表在外科长期卧床住院患者压疮评估中的应用效果。方法:将我院457例外科住院、丧失下肢行动能力患者随机分为A,B两组,A组(228例)采用外科住院患者SPURAS量表进行评估,B组(229例)采用Braden量表评估,根据评估结果分别给予相应的护理措施。结果:A组实际发生压疮7例,发生率为3.10%;B组实际发生压疮17例,发生率为7.42%,两组比较有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:SPURAS量表预测外科长期卧床住院患者压疮的效果与Braden压疮评估表比较,SPURAS量表更加直观,易于操作,节省时间,提高效率。     

Friction and shear highly associated with pressure ulcers of residents in long‐term care – Classification Tree Analysis (CHAID) of Braden items

Aims Among various risk assessment scales for the development of pressure ulcers in long‐term care residents that have been published in the last three decades, the Braden scale is among the most tested and applied tools. The sum score of the scale implies that all items are equally important. The aim of this study is to show whether specific items are of greater significance than others and therefore have a higher clinical relevance. Design Data analysis of six pressure ulcer prevalence studies (2004–2009). Methods A total of 17 666 residents (response rate 79.6%) in 234 long‐term care facilities participated in 6 annual point prevalence studies that were conducted from 2004 to 2009 throughout Germany. For the classification of the sample regarding pressure ulcers as a dependent variable and the Braden items as predictor variables, Chi‐square Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) for modelling classification trees has been used. Results Pressure ulcer prevalence was 5.4% including pressure ulcer grade 1 and 3.4% for pressure ulcer grades 2–4. CHAID analysis for the classification tree provided the item ‘friction and shear’ as the most important predictor for pressure ulcer prevalence. On the second level, the strongest predictors were ‘nutrition’ and ‘activity’ and on the third level they were ‘moisture’ and ‘mobility’. Residents with problems regarding ‘friction and shear’ and poor nutritional status present with an 18.0 (14.8) pressure ulcer prevalence which is 3–4 times higher than average. Conclusion CHAID analyses have shown that all items of the Braden scale are not equally important. For residents in long‐term care facilities in Germany, the existence of ‘friction and shear’ as a potential and especially as a manifest problem has had the strongest association with pressure ulcer prevalence.     

Braden量表预测压疮诊断界值及危险因素的研究

目的探讨Braden量表不同分界值的灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值以及压疮发生的相关危险因素。方法将2011年4月至2013年6月住院的65 926例患者中发生压疮的380例患者应用Braden量表进行压疮风险评估。结果①当Braden量表分界值为14分时,其灵敏度、特异度具有最好的平衡性。②神志、白蛋白、中重度水肿、休克(应用血管活性药物)与压疮发生有关。结论应用Braden量表对住院患者的压疮危险因素进行评估时结合压疮发生的相关危险因素,可以使Braden量表有更好的灵敏性、特异性,从而采取相应措施,有效降低住院患者的压疮发生率。     

Norton评分对中青年患者发生压疮的预测价值

目的探讨Norton量表预测中青年患者发生压疮的有效性。方法应用Norton量表对16500例中青年住院患者及15729例老年患者进行压疮高危筛查并计算压疮预测值,对高危患者实施针对性的预防措施,记录发生压疮的情况,并与同期老年患者预测结果进行比较。结果该量表对中青年住院患者压疮预测的灵敏度为90.9%,特异性为96.7%,阳性预测值为1.6%,阴性预测值为99.9%,且预测的灵敏度、特异性高于同期老年组。结论 Norton量表能有效预测中青年患者发生压疮的危险性,适用范围可从老年患者扩展到中青年患者。