Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Dec;19(4):261-70.
doi: 10.4258/hir.2013.19.4.261. Epub 2013 Dec 31.

Reusability of EMR Data for Applying Cubbin and Jackson Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale in Critical Care Patients

Eunkyung Kim  1 , Mona Choi  2 , Juhee Lee  2 , Young Ah Kim  3
Affiliations

Reusability of EMR Data for Applying Cubbin and Jackson Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale in Critical Care Patients

Eunkyung Kim et al. Healthc Inform Res. 2013 Dec.

Abstract

Objectives: The purposes of this study were to examine the predictive validity of the Cubbin and Jackson pressure ulcer risk assessment scale for the development of pressure ulcers in intensive care unit (ICU) patients retrospectively and to evaluate the reusability of Electronic Medical Records (EMR) data.

Methods: A retrospective design was used to examine 829 cases admitted to four ICUs in a tertiary care hospital from May 2010 to April 2011. Patients who were without pressure ulcers at admission to ICU, 18 years or older, and had stayed in ICU for 24 hours or longer were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated.

Results: The reported incidence rate of pressure ulcers among the study subjects was 14.2%. At the cut-off score of 24 of the Cubbin and Jackson scale, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and AUC were 72.0%, 68.8%, 27.7%, 93.7%, and 0.76, respectively. Eight items out 10 of the Cubbin and Jackson scale were readily available in the EMR data.

Conclusions: The Cubbin and Jackson scale performed slightly better than the Braden scale to predict pressure ulcer development. Eight items of the Cubbin and Jackson scale except mobility and hygiene can be extracted from the EMR, which initially demonstrated the reusability of EMR data for pressure ulcer risk assessment. If the Cubbin and Jackson scale is a part of the EMR assessment form, it would help nurses perform tasks to effectively prevent pressure ulcers with an EMR alert for high-risk patients.

Keywords: Electronic Health Records; Intensive Care Units; Nursing Assessment; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The receiver operating characteristics curve of Cubbin and Jackson scale and Braden scale. The area under the curve (AUC) showed 0.763 for Cubbin and Jackson scale, and 0.711 for Braden scale.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Nijs N, Toppets A, Defloor T, Bernaerts K, Milisen K, Van Den Berghe G. Incidence and risk factors for pressure ulcers in the intensive care unit. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18(9):1258–1266. - PubMed
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Preventing pressure ulcers in hospitals: a toolkit for improving quality of care. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. [cited at 2013 Dec 18]. Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/systems/long-term-care/resources/press....
    1. Bennett G, Dealey C, Posnett J. The cost of pressure ulcers in the UK. Age Ageing. 2004;33(3):230–235. - PubMed
    1. Hughes RG. Patient safety and quality: an evidence-based handbook for nurses. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. - PubMed
    1. Furukawa MF, Raghu TS, Shao BB. Electronic Medical Records, nurse staffing, and nurse-sensitive patient outcomes: evidence from the national database of nursing quality indicators. Med Care Res Rev. 2011;68(3):311–331. - PubMed