liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Predictive validity of 4 risk assessment scales for prediction of pressure ulcer development in a hospital setting
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Nursing Science. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2027-1663
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Nursing Science. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences.
2014 (English)In: Advances in Skin & Wound Care, ISSN 1527-7941, E-ISSN 1538-8654, Vol. 27, no 2, 70-76 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVES:

The aims of this study were to examine and compare the predictive validity of 4 risk assessment scales used for the prediction of pressure ulcer (PrU) development and to identify risk factors.

DESIGN:

Cross-sectional descriptive study.

SETTING:

A general hospital in Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS:

Patients (all aged ≥18 years) admitted to medical, surgical, orthopedic, oncology, and rehabilitation wards. Of 412 patients available, a total of 346 patients participated in the study.

METHOD:

Data were collected using the Swedish version of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel minimum data set as well as the Norton, Modified Norton, Braden, and Risk Assessment Pressure Sore (Ulcer) (RAPS) scales. The predictive validity was estimated by measuring sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine risk factors associated with PrUs.

RESULTS:

The RAPS scale reached best balance between sensitivity and specificity at the recommended cutoff level of ≤29, followed by the Braden scale and the Norton scale at recommended cutoff levels ≤18 versus ≤16, respectively. The modified Norton scale also reached an acceptable balance between sensitivity and specificity but at the cutoff level of ≤23, which is a higher cutoff level than recommended. General physical condition, physical activity, moisture, friction, and shear emerged as significant risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS:

The results support that the recommended cutoff levels of the RAPS, Norton, and Braden scales are valid in a general hospital setting. However, the recommended cutoff level of the modified Norton scale (≤20) has to be increased when used in this care context.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2014. Vol. 27, no 2, 70-76 p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-104219DOI: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000439059.72199.41ISI: 000335387600005PubMedID: 24440864OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-104219DiVA: diva2:695507
Available from: 2014-02-11 Created: 2014-02-11 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(511 kB)880 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 511 kBChecksum SHA-512
99bbb0eb292acbec02e9a85ebcfaeaa2bb8918a4db13450ce24468cf23cb743609d4586f0dd308f37abf7c15de283f7985f1095e6c7bbc3e562a92a6d557b8d4
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Källman, UlrikaLindgren, Margareta

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Källman, UlrikaLindgren, Margareta
By organisation
Division of Nursing ScienceFaculty of Health Sciences
In the same journal
Advances in Skin & Wound Care
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 880 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 268 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf