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
. 2018 Feb;74(2):407-424.
doi: 10.1111/jan.13444. Epub 2017 Sep 28.

Clinical evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE T)

Susanne Coleman  1 , Isabelle L Smith  1 , Elizabeth McGinnis  1   2 , Justin Keen  3 , Delia Muir  1 , Lyn Wilson  1   4 , Nikki Stubbs  5 , Carol Dealey  6 , Sarah Brown  1 , E Andrea Nelson  7 , Jane Nixon  1
Affiliations

Clinical evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE T)

Susanne Coleman et al. J Adv Nurs. 2018 Feb.

Abstract

Aim: To test the psychometric properties and clinical usability of a new Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instrument including inter-rater and test-retest reliability, convergent validity and data completeness.

Background: Methodological and practical limitations associated with traditional Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments, prompted a programme to work to develop a new instrument, as part of the National Institute for Health Research funded, Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (RP-PG-0407-10056).

Design: Observational field test.

Method: For this clinical evaluation 230 patients were purposefully sampled across four broad levels of pressure ulcer risk with representation from four secondary care and four community NHS Trusts in England. Blinded and simultaneous paired (ward/community nurse and expert nurse) PURPOSE-T assessments were undertaken. Follow-up retest was undertaken by the expert nurse. Field notes of PURPOSE-T use were collected. Data were collected October 2012-January 2013.

Results: The clinical evaluation demonstrated "very good" (kappa) inter-rater and test-retest agreement for PURPOSE-T assessment decision overall. The percentage agreement for "problem/no problem" was over 75% for the main risk factors. Convergent validity demonstrated moderate to high associations with other measures of similar constructs.

Conclusion: The PURPOSE-T evaluation facilitated the initial validation and clinical usability of the instrument and demonstrated that PURPOSE-T is suitable of use in clinical practice. Further study is needed to evaluate the impact of using the instrument on care processes and outcomes.

Keywords: nursing; pressure ulcer; reliability; risk assessment; tissue viability; usability; validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of participants
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Andersen, K. E. , Jensen, O. , Kvorning, S. A. , & Bach, E. (1982). Prevention of pressure sores by identifying patients at risk. British Medical Journal Clinical Research Ed., 284, 1370–1371. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beeckman, D. , Matheï, C. , Van Lancker, A. , Van Houdt, S. , Vanwalleghem, G. , Gryson, L. , … Van Den Heede, K. A. (2013). A National Guideline for the prevention of pressure ulcers: Good Clinical Practice (GCP), KCE Reports 193C. Belgium: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE).
    1. Bennett, G. , Dealey, C. , & Posnett, J. (2004). The cost of pressure ulcers in the UK. Age and Ageing, 33, 230–235. - PubMed
    1. Bergstrom, N. , Braden, B. , Kemp, M. , Champagne, M. , & Ruby, E. (1998). predicting pressure ulcer risk: A multisite study of the predictive validity of the Braden scale. Nursing Research September/October, 47, 261–269. - PubMed
    1. Bergstrom, N. , Braden, B. J. , Laguzza, A. , & Holman, V. (1987). The braden scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Nursing Research, 36, 205–210. - PubMed