ICU病人压疮危险因素预测量表的系统性回顾(英文)

[目的]本研究旨在描述及确定用于ICU病人最有效的压疮危险因素预测量表。[方法]采用系统性文献回顾方法全面检索1996年—2010年相关文献,数据库包括Medline,CINAHL,Journals@Ovid,Science Direct及中文CAJ。共检出有效研究论文11篇,8篇英文,3篇中文;分析、比较和检视4个常用于ICU病人的压疮危险因素预测量表的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值以及各自最佳临界值。[结果]Braden量表为最常用于ICU病人压疮危险因素预测量表,但临界值设定各异;方差分析结果4个量表的4项预测指标之间无统计学意义。Cubbin&Jackson量表的敏感性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值均高于其他3个量表。[结论]虽然Braden量表在国内外均较为常用,但Cubbin&Jackson量表是专门为ICU病人而设置,有较好的预测能力及较固定的临界值,但需要在中国人群中作进一步的验证。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

两种压疮危险评估表预测效果的比较研究

[目的]测量并比较Waterlow压疮危险评估表和Braden修订版压疮危险评估表的预测效果。[方法]分别用两种评估表对332例病人进行评分,分析不同临界值时敏感性、特异性、阳性预测价值、阴性预测价值。[结果]Braden修订版压疮危险评估表以19分为临界值、Waterlow压疮危险评估表以15分为临界值时敏感性、特异性、阳性预测价值、阴性预测价值等指标间能达到较好的平衡,且Braden修订版压疮危险评估表各指标均大于Waterlow压疮危险评估表;Braden修订版压疮危险评估表的ROC曲线下面积略高于Waterlow压疮危险评估表。[结论]Braden修订版压疮危险评估表和Waterlow压疮危险评估表都有较好的预测效果,尤其以Braden修订版效果更优。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Value of pressure injury assessment scales for patients in the intensive care unit: Systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis

ObjectivesTo review and examine the evidence of the value of pressure injury risk assessment scales in intensive care patients.Research methodologyWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China Biomedical Literature Service System, VIP Database and CNIK from inception to February 2019. Two reviewers independently assessed articles’ eligibility and risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-II (QUADAS-2). We used a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (HSROC) model to conduct the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.ResultTwenty-four studies were included, involving 16 scales and 15,199 patients in intensive care settings. Results indicated that the top four risk assessment scales were the Cubbin & Jackson Index (SEN = 0.84, SPE = 0.84, AUC = 0.90), the EVRUCI scale (SEN = 0.84, SPE = 0.68, AUC = 0.82), the Braden scale (SEN = 0.78, SPE = 0.61, AUC = 0.78), the Waterlow scale (SEN = 0.63, SPE = 0.46, AUC = 0.56). The Norton scale and the other eleven scales were tested in less than two studies and need to be further researched.ConclusionThe Braden scale, most frequently used in hospitals, is not the best risk assessment tool for critically ill patients. The Cubbin & Jackson Index has good diagnostic test accuracy. However, low quality of evidence and important heterogeneity were observed.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

Development of a new risk assessment scale for predicting pressure ulcers in an intensive care unit

Aims and objectives: The study aimed to evaluate the predictive validity and accuracy of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment scale in two Indonesia intensive care units (ICUs). Background: Several risk assessment scales have been designed to identify patients at risk of developing pressure ulcers in ICU. However, the relative weight of each variable that contributes to pressure ulcer development in these scales is not described to enable designing of a risk assessment scale. Currently, the risk factors contributing to pressure ulcer development include interface pressure, body temperature and cigarette smoking. Design: A prospective cohort study was conducted in two ICUs in Pontianak, Indonesia. Methods: A total of 253 patients were recruited to the study from both hospitals. Data collection included new risk assessment scale [i.e. the Suriadi and Sanada (S.S.) scale] scoring, demographic, pressure ulcer severity scores (based on the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel) and skin condition measures. Using the S.S. scale, trained data collectors scored patients once and assessed the body temperature daily until patients were discharged. Additionally, daily data were also collected in relation to the patient‘s skin condition and stage of pressure ulcer. Results: Out of the 253 patients, 72 (28·4%) developed pressure ulcers. In ICU A, the incidence was 27%; pressure ulcers developed into stage I (41·7%), stage II (45·8%), stage III (10·4%) and stage IV (2·1%). In ICU B, the incidence was 31·6%; the development of pressure ulcers was 48% in stage I and 52% in stage II. Using the predictive validity test, the S.S. scale balanced sensitivity (81%) and specificity (83%) at a cut‐off score of 4. The area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve was 0·888 (confidence interval: 0·84–0·93). Conclusion: The S.S. scale was found to be a valid risk assessment tool to identify the patients at risk of developing pressure ulcers in Indonesia ICU.     

儿童压疮评估量表应用韵评价

目的回顾和评价某三级甲等儿科医院近2年的压疮评估量表的应用情况。方法整理压疮评估量表并建立压疮评估数据库,分析压疮评估量表的预测能力及预防措施的效果。结果2年中患儿压疮总发生率为17．56％;2008年较2007年预报数量减少,而压疮发生率则从16．15％上升至19．44％。根据接受者操作特性曲线（receive operatore curve,ROC）分析,该量表的预测能力为0．524。按照危险评分而实施的预防措施各有侧重。结论住院儿童压疮评估量表的预测能力不足,需要进行结构和内容调整。但压疮评估量表的应用提高了护士的压疮防范意识。     

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.     

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。     

基于Cubbin and Jackson量表评估的综合护理干预在神经内科长期卧床老年患者压疮管理中的应用效果

目的探讨基于Cubbin and Jackson量表评估的综合护理干预在神经内科长期卧床老年患者压疮管理中的应用效果。方法将90例长期卧床老年患者根据随机数字表法分为对照组与研究组,各45例。对照组给予常规压疮护理管理,研究组给予基于Cubbin and Jackson量表评估的综合护理干预。比较两组护理效果。结果干预7 d和出院时,两组ET-1水平均降低,NO水平均升高,且研究组优于对照组(P<0.05)。出院时,研究组的压疮危险度评分高于干预前及对照组(P<0.05)。研究组的压疮发生情况、护理满意度优于对照组(P<0.05)。结论基于Cubbin and Jackson量表评估的综合护理干预可有效预防神经内科长期卧床老年患者体内血管缺血再灌注性损伤,减少压疮形成,提高患者护理满意度。     

A risk assessment scale for the prediction of pressure sore development: reliability and validity

BACKGROUND: The ability to assess the risk of a patient developing pressure sores is a major issue in pressure sore prevention. Risk assessment scales should be valid, reliable and easy to use in clinical practice. AIM: To develop further a risk assessment scale, for predicting pressure sore development and, in addition, to present the validity and reliability of this scale. METHODS: The risk assessment pressure sore (RAPS) scale, includes 12 variables, five from the re-modified Norton scale, three from the Braden scale and three from other research results. Five hundred and thirty patients without pressure sores on admission were included in the study and assessed over a maximum period of 12 weeks. Internal consistency was examined by item analysis and equivalence by interrater reliability. To estimate equivalence, 10 pairs of nurses assessed a total of 116 patients. The underlying dimensions of the scale were examined by factor analysis. The predictive validity was examined by determination of sensitivity, specificity and predictive value. RESULTS: Two variables were excluded as a result of low item-item and item-total correlations. The average percentage of agreement and the intraclass correlation between raters were 70% and 0.83, respectively. The factor analysis gave three factors, with a total variance explained of 65.1%. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value were high among patients at medical and infection wards. CONCLUSION: The RAPS scale is a reliable scale for predicting pressure sore development. The validity is especially good for patients undergoing treatment in medical wards and wards for infectious diseases. This indicates that the RAPS scale may be useful in clinical practice for these groups of patients. For patients undergoing surgical treatment, further analysis will be performed.     

Predicting pressure ulcer risk

The Braden scale is a widely used pressure risk assessment tool and it is, therefore, essential to ensure that the tool is reliable and valid. Several studies have questioned the predictive validity of the Braden scale (Nixon and McGough, 2001). Bergstrom et al (1998) used a quantitative research paradigm to evaluate the effectiveness of the Braden scale in predicting which patients who are at risk of developing pressure ulcers in three different clinical settings in the USA. The study aimed to determine at what point a pressure ulcer will develop, the critical cut-off point, and whether this cut-off point can be duplicated. The authors also hoped to establish optimum timing for risk assessments.