术中获得性压力性损伤危险因素评估量表的编制及信效度检验

目的 编制术中获得性压力性损伤危险因素评估量表并进行信效度检验,旨在为手术室护理人员提供科学、客观的压力性损伤评估工具。 方法 在循证的基础上结合2轮专家函询形成量表初稿;采用便利抽样法,于2019年11月—2020年1月选取7所三级甲等医院的6 713例择期手术患者为调查对象,对术中获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表的信效度进行检验并绘制受试者工作特征曲线确定最佳临界值。结果 术中获得性压力性损伤危险因素评估量表包括2个维度、10个危险因素;2轮函询专家积极系数均为100%,权威系数为0.874、0.885,肯德尔和谐系数为0.164、0.170;量表整体的Cronbach’s α系数为0.648,折半信度为0.705,内容效度为0.989;2个维度的最佳临界值为8.5分、7.5分,受试者工作特征曲线下面积分别为0.779、0.776。 结论 术中获得性压力性损伤危险因素评估量表具有良好的信效度,可在临床推广使用。     

Munro量表在脊椎肿瘤患者围手术期压力性损伤评估中的应用

目的探讨Munro量表对脊椎肿瘤患者围手术期压力性损伤发生风险的预测效度。方法采用方便抽样法,选取2017年9月至2018年9月在复旦大学附属肿瘤医院骨及软组织外科行手术治疗的脊椎肿瘤患者58例为研究对象,记录患者压力性损伤实际发生情况,并采用Munro量表进行评分,以获取Munro量表的最佳预测临界值。结果被调查的58例脊椎肿瘤患者围手术期实际发生压力性损伤6例,压力性损伤发生率为10.34%。Munro量表在脊椎肿瘤患者围手术期压力性损伤发生风险的最佳预测临界值为31.5分,其灵敏度为83.3%,特异度为32.7%,ROC曲线下面积AUC=0.804[95%CI(0.570～1.000),P=0.015]。结论 Munro量表对脊椎肿瘤患者围手术期压力性损伤发生风险的预测效度一般,有待进一步优化,但目前仍可作为脊椎肿瘤患者围手术期压力性损伤发生风险的评估工具。     

手术患者压力性损伤风险评估工具的多中心测评研究

目的：检验手术患者压力性损伤风险评估工具在多中心临床应用的信效度及预测能力,并与Waterlow量表进行临床应用效果的对比。方法：采用配额抽样方法,选取2020年7月至12月天津市4所三级甲等医院530例全麻手术患者作为研究对象,对手术患者压力性损伤风险评估工具进行信效度检测,并与Waterlow量表进行压力性损伤风险预测能力的比较。结果：手术患者压力性损伤风险评估工具在手术前、手术后2个阶段的Cronbach’s α系数分别为0.809、0.804;平均量表水平的内容效度指数为0.905;旋转变换累积方差贡献率显示,12个条目均在8%左右,有较强的稳定性,特征值>1的条目累积方差贡献率为75.5%;其术前、术后ROC曲线下面积分别为0.722、0.732;Waterlow量表ROC曲线下面积为0.574。结论：手术患者压力性损伤风险评估工具有较好的信效度和预测能力,可有效判断手术患者压力性损伤风险程度,具有手术患者普适性特点,为手术室压力性损伤同质化预防管理奠定了基础。     

两种量表在NCPAP患儿鼻部压力性损伤风险评估中的应用

目的:探讨新生儿压力性损伤风险评估量表(NSRAS)和儿童压力性损伤风险评估量表(Braden-Q)在新生儿重症监护室(NICU)使用经鼻持续正压通气(NCPAP)患儿鼻部压力性损伤风险评估中的应用效果。方法:采用前瞻性队列研究,将2018年3月1日～2019年2月28日入住NICU使用NCPAP患儿作为研究对象,分别使用NSRAS和Braden-Q对154例患儿进行风险评估,计算两种压力性损伤量表的灵敏度、特异度和ROC曲线下面积。结果:本组发生鼻部压力性损伤患儿34例,鼻部压力性损伤发生率为22.07%。NSRAS和Braden-Q的最佳界值分别为15分和14分;ROC曲线下面积(AUC)分别为0.665、0.570。结论:NSRAS对NCPAP患儿鼻部压力性损伤预测准确性高于Braden-Q,但两种量表的预测效果均不理想,未来还需进一步研究。     

Braden量表与MEWS在重症监护室重度创伤损伤患者压力性损伤中的预测价值分析

目的：探讨Braden量表与改良早期预警评分(MEWS)在重症监护室(ICU)重度创伤损伤患者压力性损伤中的预测价值。方法：将2017年7月1日～2020年7月31日ICU住院接受治疗的105例重度创伤性损伤患者作为研究对象，调查患者一般资料、MEWS、Braden量表评分，并在量表最佳临界值下比较两种量表的灵敏度及特异度、阳性及阴性预测值，利用ROC曲线分析比较两种压力性损伤风险评估方式的预测价值。结果：MEWS预测压力性损伤AUC为0.724,当总分为13.2时，约登指数为0.569,预测值最大；Braden量表评分预测压力性损伤AUC为0.934,当总分为9.3时，约登指数为0.857,预测值最大。Braden量表灵敏度和特异性分别为97.25%、81.57%,高于MEWS评分灵敏度(92.63%)和特异性(65.32%)。结论：MEWS与Braden量表均能很好地预测ICU重度创伤损伤患者压力性损伤的发生风险，且Braden量表预测价值更高。     

Munro压力性损伤风险评估量表在肿瘤手术病人压力性损伤预防中的应用

【摘要】报告了Munro手术压力性损伤风险评估量表的使用及应用效果。评估表在术前、术中、术后分别从活动度、空腹时间、身体质量指数、体重、健康不利因素;身体状况、麻醉类型、体温、血压、皮肤潮湿程度、表面/移动情况、体位;手术时间、出血量进行条目设置和计分,根据各条目累加获得的总分划分为3个等级,并依此实施分级护理干预,有效预测术中发生急性压力性损伤的高危人群,提高护理干预措施的针对性。     

Braden量表诊断老年人压力性损伤的适用性和最佳界值的多中心研究

目的 探讨Braden量表诊断老年人压力性损伤的适用性和最佳界值,为临床正确使用Braden量表提供依据。方法 招募全国52所医疗机构,1 067名培训合格的护士每2～3人一组,采用目的 抽样法纳入60岁以上住院患者,检查其全身皮肤并收集相关资料,判断是否存在压力性损伤及其分期,同时采用Braden量表预测评分。使用统计软件分析老年人压力性损伤流行特征和Braden量表预测诊断压力性损伤受试者工作特征曲线下面积（area under the curve,AUC）、灵敏度、特异度和约登指数。结果 在33 769例有效资料中,压力性损伤总现患率为3.12%(1 054/33 769),其中医院获得性压力性损伤发生率为0.79%(267//33 769)。分层分析显示,Braden量表预测诊断不同年龄、性别、种族和不同医疗机构中老年患者压力性损伤的AUC为0.85～0.96,灵敏度和特异度分别为0.83～0.96和0.71～0.86。总分≤15、≤16、≤17、≤18、≤19、≤20分6个界值的AUC为0.67～0.82,灵敏度和特异度分别为0.67～0.84和0.54～0.68,约登指数为...     

心脏术后压力性损伤规范化实践方案的构建与应用

目的 构建心脏术后压力性损伤规范化实践方案并探讨其应用效果。方法 以减少压力性损伤为目标,从压力性损伤的预防、风险评估、分期、干预与处理措施等方面构建压力性损伤规范化实践方案。对该方案运行效果进行对比研究。结果 应用压力性损伤规范化实践方案后,规范化组与对照组相比,患者压力性损伤发生率下降,损伤皮肤愈合时间缩短,皮肤护理费用减少,护士对患者压力性损伤风险评估的及时性、准确性以及护理措施落实率提高,50名ICU护士理论知识、操作技能考核分数提高,2组之间差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 构建心脏术后压力性损伤规范化实践方案,可降低ICU成人压力性损伤发生率,提高ICU护士对压力性损伤的认知和管理的能力,从而提高护理质量。     

成人ICU患者压力性损伤风险评估工具的构建及信效度检验

目的初步构建成人重症监护室(ICU)患者压力性损伤风险评估工具并进行信效度检验,为成人ICU患者发生压力性损伤风险提供一个有效的测评工具。方法在文献调研和参考临床常用压力性损伤危险因素评估量表的基础上,结合临床实践和研究小组讨论,初步确定工具的条目池,通过德尔菲专家咨询形成工具初稿。对322例成人ICU患者的资料进行统计分析,检验工具的信效度,同时与Braden量表进行比较。结果初步构建的风险评估工具包括7个条目,工具的Cronbach′sα系数为0.683,评分者间信度Pearson相关系数为0.993,发生压力性损伤和未发生压力性损伤的两组患者平均得分为(16.34±3.11)分和(12.66±3.33)分,差异有统计学意义(P=0.000);工具的内容效度指数为0.96,各条目的内容效度指数为0.75～1.00;探索性因子分析提取了2个公因子,累积方差贡献率为54.034%;322例患者中发生压力性损伤47例,工具和Braden量表的预测临界值分别在13分和12分时灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值最佳,工具的灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为83.0%、65.1%、29.1%及95.7%,Braden量表的灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为80.9%、58.9%、25.2%及94.7%;2者的ROC曲线下面积分别是0.784和0.800。结论该风险评估工具有较好的信效度,可以作为成人ICU患者压力性损伤发生风险的评估工具。     

Braden压力性损伤风险评估量表对重症颅脑损伤术后昏迷患者压力性损伤发生率的影响

目的探讨Braden压力性损伤风险评估量表对重症颅脑损伤术后昏迷患者压力性损伤发生率的影响。方法选择2019年5月至2020年10月于郑州大学附属郑州中心医院治疗的重症颅脑损伤术后昏迷患者150例, 按照随机数字表法分为对照组和研究组, 各75例。对照组采用常规护理, 研究组在对照组基础上采用Braden压力性损伤风险评估量表对患者进行评分, 根据评分情况针对性对患者实施护理, 护理前、后进行Braden评分, 护理后统计两组患者压力性损伤情况及住院时间, 采用格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分(GCS)对两组患者进行预后评价。结果护理后, 两组Braden评分较护理前升高, 研究组Braden评分高于对照组, 差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);研究组压力性损伤发生率小于对照组, 差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);护理后, 两组GCS评分均较护理前升高, 差异有统计学意义(P<0.05), 研究组GCS评分高于对照组, 差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);研究组住院时间短于对照组, 差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 Braden压力性损伤风险评估量表的运用可降低重症...     

Using the Braden Q Scale to Predict Pressure Ulcer Risk in pediatric patients

The Braden Q Scale for Predicting Pediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk (Braden Q Scale) is a widely used, valid, and reliable pediatric-specific pressure ulcer risk assessment tool. Since its original publication, requests for clarification on how best to use the tool across the wide spectrum of pediatric patients commonly cared for in health care systems have been received. Common clarifications focus on using the Braden Q Scale as originally designed; specifically, not using untested derivations of the tool, and not using the Braden Q Scale to predict medical device-related pressure damage. The purpose of this article is to provide practical information on how best to use the Braden Q Scale and how to score a pediatric patient's risk for pressure ulcers. Accurate assessment of patient risk for pressure ulcers is the first step in guiding appropriate nursing interventions that prevent pressure ulcers. Patient assessment, scoring, and common clinical scenarios are presented.     

Assessment of the accuracy of the CALCULATE scale for pressure injury in critically ill patients

IntroductionPressure injury is damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue that occurs in response to intense and/or prolonged skin pressure. The Braden scale is the most used in health services to assess pressure injury. However, this scale was not specifically developed for critically ill patients. The Critical Care Pressure Ulcer Assessment Tool Made Easy (CALCULATE) scale was developed for patients in intensive care units.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of the CALCULATE scale with that of Braden in predicting the risk of pressure injury in critically ill patients.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study, involving patients who did not have pressure injury on admission to the intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital in the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil. Data collection took place between January and July 2020 using the Braden and CALCULATE scales, in addition to clinical and sociodemographic variables. Patients were followed up until discharge from the intensive care unit or death.ResultsFifty-one patients were included in the study. Of these, 29 (56.9%) developed pressure injury. To predict pressure injury onset, the areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve of the Braden scale on the first day and the lowest score during the first 3 days were 0.71 (0.56–0.86) and 0.70 (0.53–0.87), respectively. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve of the CALCULATE scale on the first day and the highest score during the first 3 days were 0.91 (0.82–0.99) and 0.92 (0.85–1.00), respectively. In the logistic regression analysis, the CALCULATE scale on the first day remained an independent predictor of pressure injury onset after controlling for age and length of stay in the intensive care unit.ConclusionWe found that the CALCULATE scale may be more accurate than the Braden scale as a tool to assess the risk of developing pressure injury in critically ill patients.     

Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales; Cubbin and Jackson, Braden, and Douglas scale

This study was to compare the validity of three pressure ulcer risk tools: Cubbin and Jackson, Braden, and Douglas scales. Data were collected three times per week from 48 to 72 h after admission based on the three pressure ulcer risk assessment scales and skin assessment tool developed by the Panel for the Prediction and Prevention of Pressure Ulcers (1994) from 112 intensive care unit (ICU) patients in a educational hospital Ulsan, Korea during December 11, 2000 to February 10, 2001. When a patient developed a pressure ulcer at the time of assessment, the patient was classified into 'pressure ulcer group', and when patients did not have a pressure ulcer until they died, moved to other wards or were discharged from the hospital, they were classified into 'not pressure ulcer group'. Four indices of validity and area under the curves (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) were calculated. Based on the cut-off point presented by the developer, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value were as follows: Cubbin and Jackson scale: 89%, 61%, 51%, 92%, respectively, Braden scale: 97%, 26%, 37%, 95%, respectively, and Douglas scale: 100%, 18%, 34%, 100%, respectively. AUCs of ROC curve were 0.826 for Cubbin and Jackson, 0.707 for Braden, and 0.791 for Douglas. Overall, the Cubbin and Jackson scale showed the best validity among scales tested and we recommended it for this ICU.     

肿瘤患者医用粘胶相关性皮肤损伤风险评估量表的编制及信效度检验

目的 编制肿瘤患者医用粘胶相关性皮肤损伤风险评估量表,并检验其信效度。 方法 在文献分析、小组讨论及2轮专家咨询的基础上编制量表。采用便利抽样法,选取2021年3月—7月河南省3所三级甲等医院肿瘤内科收治的306例患者进行问卷调查,检验量表的信效度。结果 该量表包括患者因素、既往史、实验室检查、皮肤状态、粘胶性质、治疗周期及导管维护因素7个维度,共25个条目。探索性因子分析共提取7个公因子,累计方差贡献率为77.52%,各条目在其所属公因子上的载荷值为0.63~0.96;量表水平的内容效度指数为0.91,条目水平的内容效度指数为0.81~1.00;量表预测肿瘤患者医用粘胶相关性皮肤损伤发生风险的受试者操作特征曲线下面积为0.87（P<0.001, 95%CI为0.72~0.83）,截断值为27.50分。量表的Cronbach’s α系数为0.81,折半信度为0.55。 结论 该研究构建的风险评估量表具有良好的信效度,可用于评估肿瘤患者发生医用粘胶相关性皮肤损伤的风险。     

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.     

护理人员对术中压力性损伤风险评估现状及临床需求的研究

目的：了解护理人员对术中压力性损伤风险评估工具的临床应用现状、临床的实际需求以及护理人员对术中压力性损伤风险因素的认知。方法：自行设计调查问卷，内容包括一般资料、临床应用现状、临床实际需求三部分，采取问卷星形式对天津市二、三级医院手术室护理人员进行抽样调查。结果：临床应用最多的评估工具分别为Waterlow量表（37.5%）、Braden量表（25%）、Norton量表（22.5%），满意率为78.8%，存在实用性不强、评估不便捷、连续性欠缺等问题；护理人员需求显示评估工具应具有专科性（98.01%）；能够包括患者因素（94.42%）、手术因素（96.81%）；能够进行术前（95.92%）、术中（91.02%）、术后（89.80%）围术期的动态评估；危险因素的认知调查结果：“手术时长、手术体位、术中施加外力、低温麻醉、术中体温变化”的重要性判断最高，“术中血压变化、术中体温变化”的可操作性最低。结论：术中压力性损伤风险评估工具的临床选择呈现多样性，但普遍存在不足之处，这与手术相关因素对患者的影响相关，因此，术中压力性损伤风险评估工具的形成更应结合临床实际需求，向手术专科性、结构化的方向发展。     

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.     

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.