老年患者压疮的防治

目的探讨有效的防治压疮方法。方法应用我院根据Norton危险因素评分法和Anderson危险指标评分法改良的压疮预防监控表,进行全身皮肤的评估,对评分≥15分的132例老年患者随机分为二组:一组进行常规的压疮防治方法进行护理64例,另一组在压疮好发部位敷贴3M透明薄膜进行护理68例。结果使用3M透明敷贴的老年患者较使用常规措施的老年患者在预防压疮方面有显著的效果。结论在临床上护理人员对容易发生压疮的高危患者采取积极有效的预防措施,能降低压疮的发生率。     

Immobility--a major risk factor for development of pressure ulcers among adult hospitalized patients: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors associated with pressure ulcer development among adult hospitalized medical and surgical patients. DESIGN: A prospective comparative study including 530 adult patients from medical and surgical wards. Registered Nurses made the data collection on admission and once a week for up to 12 weeks. The risk assessment scale used was the Risk Assessment Pressure Sore (RAPS) scale, including the following variables; general physical condition, activity, mobility, moisture, food intake, fluid intake, sensory perception, friction and shear, body temperature and serum albumin. RESULTS: Sixty-two (11.7%) patients developed 85 pressure ulcers. The most common pressure ulcer was that of nonblanchable erythema. Patients who developed pressure ulcers were significantly older, hospitalized for a longer time, had lower scores on the total RAPS scale, had lower weight and lower diastolic blood pressure than nonpressure ulcer patients did. In the multiple logistic regression analyses using variables included in the RAPS scale immobility emerged as a strong risk factor. When adding remaining significant variables in the analyses, mobility, time of hospitalization, age, surgical treatment and weight were found to be risk factors for pressure ulcer development. CONCLUSION: It is confirmed that immobility is a risk factor of major importance for pressure ulcer development among adult hospitalized patients. The results also indicate that the RAPS scale may be useful for prediction of pressure ulcer development in clinical practice.     

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.     

Pressure ulcers: validation of two risk assessment scales

Aims and objectives. To compare the predictive value of two pressure ulcer risk assessment scales (Braden and Norton) and of clinical judgement. To evaluate the impact of effective preventive measures on the predictive validity of the two risk assessment scales. Methods. Of the 1772 participating older patients, 314 were randomly selected and assigned to the ‘turning’ group; 1458 patients were assigned to the ‘non‐turning’ group. Using the Braden and the Norton scale the pressure ulcer risk was scored twice weekly during a four‐week period. Clinical assessment was monitored daily. The patients at risk in the ‘turning’ group (Braden score <17 or Norton score <12) were randomly assigned to a two‐hour turning schedule or to a four‐hour turning schedule in combination with a pressure‐reducing mattress. The ‘non‐turning’ group received preventive care based on the clinical judgement of the nurses. Results. The diagnostic accuracy was similar for both scales. If nurses act according to risk assessment scales, 80% of the patients would unnecessarily receive preventive measures. The use of effective preventive measures decreased the predictive value of the risk assessment scales. Nurses predicted pressure ulcer development less well than the Braden and the Norton scale. Only activity, sensory perception, skin condition and existence of old pressure ulcers were significant predictors of pressure ulcer lesions. Relevance to clinical practice. The effectiveness of the Norton and Braden scales is very low. Much needless work is done and expensive material is wrongly allocated. The use of effective preventive measures decreases the predictive value of the risk assessment scales. Although the performance of the risk assessment scales is poor, using a risk assessment tool seems to be a better alternative than relying on the clinical judgement of the nurses.     

压疮危险因素评估表预测不同患者群体压疮发生的研究

目的比较压疮危险因素评估表（Norton ulcer risk assessment scale,以下简称Norton量表）对不同年龄组及不同病区患者压疮的预测效果。方法运用Norton量表对内外科住院患者进行连续评估,计算量表对不同患者群体预测的灵敏度、特异性、预测值。结果 Norton量表对老年患者灵敏度96.96%、特异性87.68%、阳性预测值22.96%,阴性预测值99.87%;对中青年患者灵敏度97.37%、特异性96.73%、阳性预测值12.05%、阴性预测值99.98%,Norton量表对老年患者及中青年患者压疮预测均具有较高的灵敏度和特异性。Norton量表对内科、外科及不同病区患者均具有较高的预测灵敏度;对神经外科、ICU患者预测特异性较低。结论 Norton量表对不同年龄组和不同病区患者皆具有较好的预测效果,内外科各病区可以统一使用Norton量表对患者进行压疮高危筛查和评估。     

神经内科高危患者发生压疮的相关因素分析

目的 探讨神经内科高危压疮患者发生的原因.方法 对入住神经内科重症监护病房376例诺顿评分≤14分的患者进行观察.结果 376例高危压疮患者发生压疮35例共55处.结论 压疮是内外多重因素共同导致的结果,护理技术革新及新型卫生材料使用的负面效应是压疮形成值得关注的新因素,瘫痪、大小便失禁、高血糖、肥胖、低蛋白血症等是压疮形成的主要内因.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

老年神经内科住院患者的压疮危险因素分析及护理对策

目的探讨老年神经内科住院患者的压疮危险因素及相关护理干预对策。方法回顾性分析在老年神经内科住院治疗的100例高龄患者的临床资料,评估每位患者的年龄、营养状况、合并症、医疗器械相关性因素(留置胃管、导尿管、PICC管、气管插管、呼吸机管路等及使用心电监护仪器等)以及Norton量表,将2015年2—12月的51例患者纳入对照组,将2016年1—9月的49例患者纳入观察组,对照组采用常规护理,观察组在此基础上由压疮监控管理小组制定管理流程,护理人员接受压疮知识培训后对患者实施个性化、预见性护理措施,比较2组Norton量表评分、压疮发生率以及患者满意度等。结果老年性痴呆、医疗器械相关性因素、低BMI以及贫血是高龄患者发生压疮的独立危险因素;观察组Norton评分、压疮发生率均低于对照组(P0.05);观察组患者及家属满意度高于对照组(P0.05)。结论老年性痴呆、医疗器械相关性因素、低BMI以及贫血是高龄患者发生压疮的独立危险因素,对老年神经内科住院压疮高危患者采取监控管理及预见性护理措施,可有效降低压疮风险和发生率,提高患者及家属满意度。     

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.     

手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表对手术患者压力性损伤预测效果的研究

目的 比较并评价手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表、Braden性压力性损伤风险评估量表、Munro围术期成人压力性损伤风险评估量表对外科择期手术患者手术获得性压力损伤的预测效果,为临床选择使用适宜量表提供依据。方法 选取2所三级甲等医院2019年12月—2020年6月外科择期手术患者237例,应用3种量表于术前、术中、术后对患者进行压力性损伤风险评估和皮肤检查。比较3种量表的预测效果和操作便利性。结果 手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表、Braden压力性损伤风险评估量表、Munro围术期成人压力性损伤风险评估量表,术前ROC曲线下面积AUC分别为0.695、0.619、0.684;术中ROC曲线下面积AUC分别为0.848、0.633、0.882;术后ROC曲线下面积AUC分别为0.861、0.757、0.870;3种量表的评估用时比较,手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表评估用时最短。结论 手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表对手术获得性压力性损伤患者预测能力较好,方便使用,值得临床推广应用。     

Incidence and risk recording of pressure ulcers: results of quality measurement of the Verein Outcome in Swiss hospitals

Avoidance of ulcers is one of the key duties of nursing professionals. A low rate of decubitus ulcer is an indicator for the quality of nursing. The Verein Outcome (Switzerland) collected data on the incidence of ulcers in 51 hospitals with a total of 88 636 patients. Additionally, the data included an analysis of the severity of the impairment, a risk assessment, and an inquiry of the predictive validity of the Norton scale. The incidence turned out to be rather low at 3.1%. 2.6% of all patients came into treatment with an ulcer already in existence while 3.8% were still suffering from an ulcer at the time of their discharge. Although these rates can be considered low compared to rates cited in international studies, changes in routine care should be implemented for the subsequent benefit of future patients. Using the Norton scale, 9.5% of all patients were at risk for developing an ulcer, and 14% of this group actually formed one. The use of the Norton scale has a tendency to overestimate the risk of ulcer development. The sensitivity of the Norton scale was computed to be at 42.4%, whereas the specificity scored 91.5%. Enhancements of the Norton scale, therefore, are essential as a comprehensive, reproducible, and transparent risk assessment is an efficient prophylactic method for the avoidance of ulcers.     

Risk factors and prevention among patients with hospital-acquired and pre-existing pressure ulcers in an acute care hospital

Aims and objectives.  This study aimed to describe and identify risk factors associated with hospital‐acquired pressure ulcers among adults in an acute care hospital compared with patients with pre‐existing pressure ulcers present on admission. A further aim was to identify the preventive measures performed with both groups respectively. Background.  Pressure ulcers occur most often in older and immobile persons with severe acute illness and neurological deficits. However, few studies have addressed risk factors that are associated with hospital‐acquired pressure ulcers compared with patients with pre‐existing pressure ulcers. Design.  A point prevalence study with a cross‐sectional survey design was conducted at a Swedish university hospital. Method.  Data on 535 patients were recorded using a modified version of the protocol developed and tested by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, including the Braden scale for risk assessment. Results.  The prevalence of pressure ulcers was 27% (95% confidence interval, 23–31%). Higher age and a total Braden score below 17 were significantly associated with the presence of pressure ulcers. Among individual risk factors higher age, limited activity level and friction and shear while seated or lying down were associated with hospital‐acquired pressure ulcers, whereas only higher age and friction and shear were associated with the presence of pressure ulcers in the overall sample. There was an overall sparse use of preventive measures to relieve pressure. Conclusion.  The findings of the present study revealed that pressure ulcers and the insufficient use of preventive measure to relieve pressure is still a problem in acute care settings. A continued focus must be placed on staff training in identifying patients at risk for pressure ulcers development. Relevance to clinical practice.  Increasing the ability to identify patients who are at risk for pressure ulcer development can assist in preventing unnecessary complications and suffering as well as reduce costs.     

A clinical trial of the Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk

The purpose of this article was to describe the protocol by which predictive instruments can be tested for validity and to evaluate the usefulness of an instrument for predicting pressure sore risk in an AICU. The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk was described. Methods for measuring predictive validity and for calculating sensitivity, specificity, and per cent predictive value of positive and negative tests were discussed. Sixty consecutively admitted AICU patients who were pressure sore free were rated for pressure sore risk within 24 to 72 hours after admission. The skin condition of each patient was systematically assessed every 2 days. Twenty-four subjects developed pressure sores during the study period. The critical cut-off point at which the patient could be judged to be at risk for pressure sore formation was a Braden Scale score equal to or less than 16. The sensitivity and specificity of the scale at this score were 83 to 64 per cent, respectively. The per cent predictive value of a positive and negative test were 61 and 85 per cent, respectively. The Braden Scale compared favorably with the Norton Scale in respect to sensitivity. The specificity, or the tendency of a scale to overpredict, was greater for the Norton than for the Braden Scale. The Norton Scale overpredicted by 64 per cent, whereas the Braden Scale overpredicted by 36 per cent. This difference may be important clinically if all patients who were judged to be at risk received additional nursing care or protective devices. A greater number of patients may receive unnecessary and expensive treatments using the Norton Scale.     

Comparing Norton, Braden and Waterlow risk assessment scales for pressure ulcers in spinal cord injuries

When pressure ulcers occur health care services are faced with considerable challenges and costs. Additionally these ulcers cause significant physical and psycho-social impairment for patients and their families. The complexity of pressure ulcer management is widely acknowledged in the literature. However, the applicability of the major risk assessment scales in the context of spinal cord injury has not been explored. Retrospective case history audit of individuals with pressure ulcers provided data to compare the three commonly used Norton, Braden and Waterlow scales. Waterlow's scale was the most sensitive of the three scales compared.     

Inter-rater reliability of Glamorgan Paediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale

Children who are at risk of pressure ulcers need to be identified so that preventative measures can be taken. Most paediatric pressure ulcer risk assessment scales were developed using clinical experience, or by modifying adult scales. The Glamorgan Paediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale was developed using detailed paediatric inpatient data. AIM: To establish whether the inter-rater reliability of the Glamorgan scale was adequate for use in clinical practice. METHOD: Fifteen qualified nurses randomly selected from staff working on seven paediatric wards or units in a large tertiary referral hospital have participated in the study to date. Nurses asked permission from the children and parents in their care to collect anonymous data in the risk assessment section of the Glamorgan scale. The nurse and the researcher independently assessed the child's risk. Paired risk assessments were later compared and analysed using SPSS. RESULTS: The total risk scores ranged from 15 to 34 (high to very high risk). There was 100 per cent agreement on all items except for 'inadequate nutrition'. CONCLUSION: These preliminary data indicate that the risk assessment scale is reliable. More research on the reliability and validity of this tool with specific paediatric patient groups should be carried out, ideally comparing the performance of this tool with other published paediatric pressure ulcer risk assessment tools.     

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.