两种儿童压疮危险评估量表预测效果比较

目的比较BradenQ儿童压疮危险评估量表（以下简称BQ量表）和上海交通大学医学院附属上海儿童医学中心住院患者压疮危险评估表（以下简称住院患者压疮评估表）在儿科重症患者压疮评估中的应用效果,探索区分患者发生压疮风险的临界值。方法本研究采用前瞻性队列研究设计,分别用2种量表对113例患者进行评估,由2名经过统一培训的临床护士分别负责量表评分和皮肤评估＋两者分别独立进行。结果本次研究收集的113例样本中,实际发生压疮8例,发生率为7．1％。BO量表和住院患者压疮危险评估表的预测临界值分别是19分和22分;而两者ROC曲线下面积分别为0．502和0．595。结论BQ量表的感知觉、浸渍、摩擦与剪切3个条目以及住院患者压疮危险评估表的活动能力、肢体可动度、皮肤、体质量、大小便5个条目有较好的预测能力,但2种量表预测儿童压疮的效果均不佳,需要做进一步的研究。     

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。     

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。     

改良压疮危险因素评估表在脑外科患者中的应用

目的探讨改良压疮危险因素评估表在颅脑外科中的应用效果。方法采用改良压疮危险因素评估表对56例新入院、手术后危重患者进行压疮危险因素评估。结果根据评分结果实施有针对性的护理干预措施,56例患者除2例特重型颅脑损伤者发生压疮,其余均未发生压疮。结论改良压疮危险因素评估表评估结果,可作为对患者进行压疮预防措施的循证证据,对有压疮危险因素的患者提供个体化护理,以降低压疮的发生率。     

两种评估量表预测急诊患者压疮效果的比较研究

目的 探讨急诊患者中使用Braden评估表和Norton评估表,评价压疮预测效果.方法 2名护士分别应用2种量表,同时、独立地对同一患者进行评估.共249例患者接受评估.结果 Braden评估表与Norton评估表比较,能较好平衡敏感度和特异度.2种评估表都有相对较高的阴性预测值(≥98％),但阳性预测值均偏低.结论 Braden评估表压疮预测效果较好,可以在急诊压疮高发的患者中应用.     

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。     

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.     

OH压疮评估表在心衰患者中的应用效果研究

目的及早预防及降低心衰患者压疮的发生率,以提高心衰患者的生活质量。方法干预组对患者使用OH压疮评估表进行评估,对照组采用常规的护理方法。结果干预组使用OH评估表评估高危患者100例,院内发生压疮1例,其余99例住院期间均未发生压疮,总发生率为1%;对照组115例,院内发生压疮9例,发生率为7.83%,两组差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论使用OH压疮评估表可以及早作出预防措施,降低心衰患者压疮的发生率。     

压疮危险因素评估量表在ICU患者中预防压疮应用现状研究进展

使用压疮危险因素评估量表评估压疮风险度是重症监护室(intensive care unit,ICU)患者预防压疮发生的重要及首要措施。本文通过对压疮危险评估量表相关文献的总体回顾,探讨其在ICU患者预防压疮应用现状中存在的问题,以期为ICU患者选择合适的压疮危险因素评估量表提供依据,帮助解决现有问题从而有效预防压疮,降低压疮的发生率。     

三种压疮评估量表在神经内科应用的比较研究

中文:将筛选入组的神经内科患者分别应用Braden、Norton、Waterlow 3 种压疮评估量表进行评估。应用stata10统计学软件对三种量表的计数资料进行因子分析,对比三种量表在神经科患者压疮危险评估中的效度和信度。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

营养风险对老年住院患者压疮发生的影响

目的 探讨营养风险对老年住院患者压疮发生的影响,为制订针对性营养支持方案提供依据.方法 应用营养风险筛查表(nutritional risk screening 2002,NRS-2002)及相关营养指标对150例神经内科老年住院患者进行营养风险筛查与评估,分析营养风险对老年人压疮发生的影响.结果 有营养风险者86例,压疮发生率为16.67％.无营养风险者64例,压疮发生率为42.67％.营养指标显示血红蛋白(HGB)、血清白蛋白(ALB)、前清白蛋白(PAB)、总淋巴细胞计数(TLC)在有营养风险组较营养正常组有差异.Logistic回归分析有营养风险老年患者压疮的发生率是营养正常者的6.99倍.结论 对老年住院患者进行营养风险筛查,采取积极、合理的营养支持计划与护理干预,可有效降低老年住院患者压疮的发生.     

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。     

瘫痪患者褥疮危险因素的动态评估与干预

目的　探讨瘫痪患者褥疮高危因素的动态评估在预防干预中的作用。方法　将 86例瘫痪患者随机分为主动预防组即采用褥疮危险因素动态评估指导下的预防和被动预防组即常规的预防护理 ,观察并比较两组在住院期间褥疮发生率、资源利用的有效性。结果　被动预防组发生褥疮初期 5例 (11 6 3% ) ,褥疮Ⅱ期 2例 (4 6 5 % ) ;主动预防组仅有 1例褥疮初期。结论　经动态评估对褥疮高危患者实行重点预防既节省资源又提高了预防干预的有效性。     

Examining the validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: developing and using illustrated patient simulations to collect the data

Simulations are of particular advantage in research studies where large samples are necessary to achieve statistical power and the information must be collected under uniform conditions in order to aid interpretation. In the study reported below, simulation was achieved through the use of medical photography accompanied by case studies of the same patients. All information was collected on the same day. The purpose of the study was to determine the validity of the three pressure ulcer risk assessment scales most commonly used in clinical nursing practice in the UK. Each clinical nurse assessed the same four patients using three risk assessment scales and a visual analogue scale designed to capture their own clinical judgement. External validity was assessed by a panel of tissue viability experts who provided independent ratings. Data were obtained from 236 clinical nurses, yielding 941 risk assessments. Experience with this approach to data collection suggests that it requires careful planning. This should include measures to ensure that the simulated information is valid and that all data collectors have been adequately trained and are able to motivate the nurses participating in the study. Providing consideration is given to these issues, the use of simulation can help to collect data that would be difficult to obtain by more conventional means. It is also important to recognize that clinical decisions are de-contextualized in simulations because they are reduced to verbal and visual summaries. The decision to use simulations should thus be taken only if this is acknowledged.