Predicting pressure ulcer risk: comparing the predictive validity of 4 scales
- PMID: 15788914
- DOI: 10.1097/00129334-200503000-00013
Predicting pressure ulcer risk: comparing the predictive validity of 4 scales
Abstract
Objective: To compare the predictive validity of 4 pressure ulcer risk assessment tools.
Methods: Prospective clinical design in which 230 subjects free of pressure ulceration on admission were assessed using the Braden, Gosnell, Norton, and Waterlow scales within 48 hours of admission. Subjects' skin condition was assessed once every 24 hours for a minimum of 14 days to identify any skin breakdown.
Results: Based on Youden's index, the Gosnell Scale had better predictive validity in identifying patients at risk for pressure ulcer development (J = 68%). The other scales did not predict individuals at risk with high accuracy, despite having high sensitivity and specificity.
Conclusion: Numerous pressure ulcer risk assessment tools have been developed, but sufficient evidence for using one tool over another does not exist. In this study, the Gosnell Scale was found to be more appropriate for application in patients with neurologic and orthopedic conditions.
Clinical relevance: Being able to predict which patients are at risk for pressure ulcers can assist practitioners in tailoring care to prevent unnecessary complications and suffering, as well as reduce costs.
Similar articles
-
Predicting pressure ulcer risk with the modified Braden, Braden, and Norton scales in acute care hospitals in Mainland China.Appl Nurs Res. 2005 May;18(2):122-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2005.01.001. Appl Nurs Res. 2005. PMID: 15991112
-
Predictive validity of Waterlow Scale for pressure ulcer development risk in hospitalized patients.J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2009 Nov-Dec;36(6):640-6. doi: 10.1097/WON.0b013e3181bd86c9. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2009. PMID: 19920745
-
All at-risk patients are not created equal: analysis of Braden pressure ulcer risk scores to identify specific risks.J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2012 May-Jun;39(3):282-91. doi: 10.1097/WON.0b013e3182435715. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2012. PMID: 22552104
-
Predictive Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Tools for Elderly: A Meta-Analysis.West J Nurs Res. 2016 Apr;38(4):459-83. doi: 10.1177/0193945915602259. Epub 2015 Sep 2. West J Nurs Res. 2016. PMID: 26337859 Review.
-
An evaluation of the Waterlow pressure ulcer risk-assessment tool.Br J Nurs. 2005 Apr 28-May 11;14(8):455-9. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2005.14.8.17930. Br J Nurs. 2005. PMID: 15924028 Review.
Cited by
-
Repositioning for pressure injury prevention in adults.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 2;6(6):CD009958. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009958.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. PMID: 32484259 Free PMC article.
-
Assessing Predictive Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Scales- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Iran J Public Health. 2016 Feb;45(2):122-33. Iran J Public Health. 2016. PMID: 27114977 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Predictive validity of the braden scale for pressure injury risk assessment in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Nurs Open. 2021 Sep;8(5):2194-2207. doi: 10.1002/nop2.792. Epub 2021 Feb 25. Nurs Open. 2021. PMID: 33630407 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of the Validity and Reliability of the Waterlow Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale.Med Arch. 2018 Apr;72(2):141-144. doi: 10.5455/medarh.2018.72.141-144. Med Arch. 2018. PMID: 29736104 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Repositioning for pressure ulcer prevention in adults.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 3;2014(4):CD009958. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009958.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 2;6:CD009958. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009958.pub3. PMID: 24700291 Free PMC article. Updated.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical