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.     

3种压疮危险评估量表在神经外科ICU病人中的应用研究

[目的]研究Braden量表、Norton量表和Waterlow压疮危险评估量表在神经外科监护病房病人应用中的信效度情况。[方法]选择南通大学附属医院神经外科ICU入科前未发生压疮的病人121例,由两名研究者运用3种量表对病人发生压疮的风险进行评估,连续评估病人发生压疮的危险,采用Cronbach’sα系数评价量表的内部一致性信度、采用组内相关系数评价量表的评定者间的信度,采用灵敏度、特异度、ROC曲线下面积(AUC)评价量表的预测效度。[结果]Braden量表、Norton量表和Waterlow量表Cronbach’sα系数分别为0.459,0.397,0.311,ICC分别为0.79,0.89,0.78。Braden量表的AUC为0.365,高低危人群的分界诊断界值在10.5分时,灵敏度为36.4%,特异度为47.5%。Norton量表的AUC为0.475,高低危人群的分界诊断界值在10.5分时,灵敏度为59.1%,特异度为38.4%。Waterlow量表的AUC为0.468,高低危人群的分界诊断界值在20.5分时,灵敏度为54.5%,特异度为47.5%。[结论]Braden量表、Norton量表和Waterlow量表评定者间信度较好,内部一致性信度较差,与其他两个量表相比,Waterlow量表的预测效度较佳,提示进一步研究可对Waterlow量表的条目进行修订,研究更为准确且适合神经外科ICU病人的压疮预测工具。     

Braden压疮危险因素评估量表对基层医院危重病人的适用性研究

[目的]探讨Braden压疮危险因素评估量表对基层医院危重病人压疮评估的预测效力.[方法]采用日常活动能力分类量表、Braden压疮危险因素评估量表对74例危重病人如严重创伤、神经损伤、昏迷、死亡病人进行评估.[结果]日常活动能力分类量表评分3分～5分,Braden压疮危险因素评估量表6个条目平均分为2.36分～3.06分,压疮发生率为8.1%,Braden压疮危险因素评估量表临界值为14分时灵敏度为85.1%、特异度为93.2%、阳性预测值为33.4%、阴性预测值为98.7%.[结论]危重病人病情危重度越高,Braden压疮危险因素评估量表临界值取14分时其灵敏度和特异度较好;Braden压疮危险因素评估量表对我院危重病人的压疮预测效果较好.     

两种压疮危险因素评估量表在手术患者中信度和效度比较研究

目的比较两种压疮危险因素评估量表(Braden量表和修订版Braden量表)用于手术患者时的信度和效度,为降低术后患者压疮发生率提供有效的压疮危险因素评估工具。方法两名护士分别应用两种量表,同时、独立地对同一患者进行评估,共211例患者接受评估。结果两种量表的评估者间一致性信度Pearson相关系数分别为0.991、0.993;克朗巴赫系数α分别为0.518～0.743,0.307～0.551;Braden量表和修订版中分别去掉“营养状况”、“体型/身高状况”条目后量表的克朗巴赫系数α最高,分别为0.829、0.721;因子分析结果显示两种量表的结构效度与原设想的基本一致;当诊断界值取19分时,修订版Braden量表手术后当天评分的灵敏度和特异度相对较平衡,分别为70.0%、58.1%。结论两种量表具有较好的评估者间一致性信度、区分度和结构效度,在手术患者中的预测效度均不理想,但修订版优于Braden量表,适合中国手术患者人群的压疮危险因素评估工具有待进一步完善。     

Braden压疮危险因素评估量表对基层医院危重病人的适用性研究

[目的]探讨Braden压疮危险因素评估量表对基层医院危重病人压疮评估的预测效力。[方法]采用日常活动能力分类量表、Braden压疮危险因素评估量表对74例危重病人如严重创伤、神经损伤、昏迷、死亡病人进行评估。[结果]日常活动能力分类量表评分3分～5分,Braden压疮危险因素评估量表6个条目平均分为2.36分～3.06分,压疮发生率为8.1%,Braden压疮危险因素评估量表临界值为14分时灵敏度为85.1%、特异度为93.2%、阳性预测值为33.4%、阴性预测值为98.7%。[结论]危重病人病情危重度越高,Braden压疮危险因素评估量表临界值取14分时其灵敏度和特异度较好;Braden压疮危险因素评估量表对我院危重病人的压疮预测效果较好。     

3种压疮危险评估表信效度的比较研究

[目的]比较和评价Braden、Norton和Waterlow 3种压疮危险评估量表在消化系疾病老年病人中应用的信效度.[方法]选取某三级甲等医院消化科入院前未发生压疮的老年病人258例,运用3种量表连续评估病人的压疮危险,采用内容效度指数、因子分析法、ROC曲线等方法评价比较3种量表的效度,用Cronbach's α系数和Pearson 相关系数评价3种量表的内部一致性信度.[结果]Braden、Norton和Waterlow量表内容效度指数分别为0.87、0.80、0.85;KMO值分别为:0.752、0.792、0.604;因子分析得到的方差贡献率分别为68.68%、58.05%、68.04%.3种量表诊断预测价值尚可,但综合几项指标,Waterlow量表对消化系疾病老年病人压疮的预测效果最好,最佳临界值推荐19分.Cronbach's α系数结果显示Braden量表在3种量表中内部一致性最高为0.799,其次是Norton量表为0.785,最低的是Waterlow量表为0.361.条目与总分相关系数分析Braden和Norton量表条目相关适宜,Waterlow量表相关系数较低.[结论]Braden和Norton量表的内部一致性较高,Waterlow量表由于设计的特殊性使其内部一致性较低.3种量表的内容效度和结构效度总体良好、预测效度以Waterlow量表最佳.提示可以Waterlow量表为基准,调整压疮危险因素的有关条目,研究更为准确适合消化系统疾病老年病人的压疮预测工具.     

Braden量表在足部压疮风险预测中的诊断价值分析

目的 检验Braden量表在足部压疮风险预测中的价值.方法 采用Braden量表分别对52例足部压疮和124例尾骶部压疮进行压疮风险评估,并随机选择120例无压疮的危重患者作为对照,将Braden量表评分输入SPSS软件,预测足部压疮和尾骶部压疮的灵敏度、特异度,比较两者ROC曲线下面积.结果 Braden量表预测尾骶...     

Braden评估量表在预测ICU患者发生压疮中的应用及研究进展

综述了Braden评估量表的评估内容、评估价值比较、评分临界值、预测指标、新危险因素等。认为对于ICU危重患者的Braden评估量表的临界值评分为14分,此值兼顾了敏感度与特异度,可以提高ICU患者的压疮预测效果。     

Braden量表预测压疮诊断界值及危险因素的研究

目的探讨Braden量表不同分界值的灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值以及压疮发生的相关危险因素。方法将2011年4月至2013年6月住院的65 926例患者中发生压疮的380例患者应用Braden量表进行压疮风险评估。结果①当Braden量表分界值为14分时,其灵敏度、特异度具有最好的平衡性。②神志、白蛋白、中重度水肿、休克(应用血管活性药物)与压疮发生有关。结论应用Braden量表对住院患者的压疮危险因素进行评估时结合压疮发生的相关危险因素,可以使Braden量表有更好的灵敏性、特异性,从而采取相应措施,有效降低住院患者的压疮发生率。     

国外护理杂志摘录

应用Braden量表预防压疮——评估病人压疮危险因素的最新办法[英]Barbara J．Braden…／／美国护理杂志．-2005,105(6)．-70-72 作者讲述了临床护理中面临的关于病人压疮的问题,虽然几乎所有护理人员都明白评估压疮危险因素的重要性也听说过Braden量表,但是大多数人还是没有意识到为什么要用这个量表以及如何应用。文中介绍了什么是Braden量表,如何检验量表的信度和效度、危     

Assessing predictive validity of the modified Braden scale for prediction of pressure ulcer risk of orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting

Aims and objectives. To assess and compare the predictive validity of the modified Braden and Braden scales and to identify which of the modified Braden subscales are predictive in assessing pressure ulcer risk among orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting. Background. Although the Braden scale has better predictive validity, literature has suggested that it can be used in conjunction with other pressure ulcer risk calculators or that some other subscales be added. To increase the predictive power of the Braden scale, a modified Braden scale by adding body build for height and skin type and excluding nutrition was developed. Design. A prospective cohort study. Method. A total of 197 subjects in a 106‐bed orthopaedic department of an acute care hospital in Hong Kong were assessed for their risk for pressure ulcer development by the modified Braden and Braden scales. Subsequently, daily skin assessment was performed to detect pressure ulcers. Cases were closed when pressure ulcers were detected. Results. Out of 197 subjects, 18 patients (9·1%) developed pressure ulcers. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the modified Braden scale was 0·736 and for the Braden scale was 0·648. The modified Braden cut‐off score of 19 showed the best balance of sensitivity (89%) and specificity (62%). Sensory perception (Beta = ?1·544, OR=0·214, p = 0·016), body build for height (Beta = ?0·755, OR = 0·470, p = 0·030) and skin type (Beta = ?1·527, OR = 0·217, p = 0·002) were significantly predictive of pressure ulcer development. Conclusion. The modified Braden scale is more predictive of pressure ulcer development than the Braden scale. Relevance to clinical practice. The modified Braden scale can be adopted for predicting pressure ulcer development among orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting. Specific nursing interventions should be provided, with special attention paid to orthopaedic patients with impaired sensory perception, poor skin type and abnormal body build for height.     

Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales; Cubbin and Jackson, Braden, and Douglas scale

This study was to compare the validity of three pressure ulcer risk tools: Cubbin and Jackson, Braden, and Douglas scales. Data were collected three times per week from 48 to 72 h after admission based on the three pressure ulcer risk assessment scales and skin assessment tool developed by the Panel for the Prediction and Prevention of Pressure Ulcers (1994) from 112 intensive care unit (ICU) patients in a educational hospital Ulsan, Korea during December 11, 2000 to February 10, 2001. When a patient developed a pressure ulcer at the time of assessment, the patient was classified into 'pressure ulcer group', and when patients did not have a pressure ulcer until they died, moved to other wards or were discharged from the hospital, they were classified into 'not pressure ulcer group'. Four indices of validity and area under the curves (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) were calculated. Based on the cut-off point presented by the developer, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value were as follows: Cubbin and Jackson scale: 89%, 61%, 51%, 92%, respectively, Braden scale: 97%, 26%, 37%, 95%, respectively, and Douglas scale: 100%, 18%, 34%, 100%, respectively. AUCs of ROC curve were 0.826 for Cubbin and Jackson, 0.707 for Braden, and 0.791 for Douglas. Overall, the Cubbin and Jackson scale showed the best validity among scales tested and we recommended it for this ICU.     

Interrater reliability of the Braden scale

Pressure ulcer risk assessment scales can assist nurses in determining the individual pressure ulcer risk. Although the Braden scale is widely used throughout Germany, its psychometric properties are yet unknown. The aim of the study was to determine the interrater reliability of the Braden scale and to compare the results with those of published data. A literature review was conducted. 20 studies measuring the interrater reliability of the Braden scale were evaluated. Only three of those studies investigated the interrater reliability of single items. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (0.80 to 1.00) was calculated in most studies for an evaluation of the Braden scale as a whole. However, the use of correlation coefficients is inappropriate for measuring the interrater reliability of the Braden scale. Measures of the intraclass correlation coefficient varied from 0.83 to 0.99. The investigation of the interrater reliability of the Braden scale's German version was conducted in a German nursing home in 2006. Nurses independently rated 18 and 32 residents twice. Nurses achieved the highest agreement when rating the items "friction and shear" and "activity" (overall proportion of agreement = 0.67 to 0.84, Cohen's Kappa = 0.57 to 0.73). The lowest agreement was achieved when the item "nutrition" (overall proportion of agreement = 0.47 to 0.51, Cohen's Kappa = 0.28 to 0.30) was rated. For 66% of the rated residents the difference in the obtained Braden scores was equal or less than one point. Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.82 to 0.96) and 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.96). This indicates that the interrater reliability of the Braden scale was high in the examined setting.     

Validation of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: a critique

AIM: The aim of this paper is to present critical analysis of the validation methods of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales. BACKGROUND: The validation of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales remains a topic of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Braden scale and Norton scale are the most frequently used. Sensitivity and specificity are the recommended and most commonly used epidemiological tools to evaluate the validity of those risk assessment scales. DISCUSSION: The use of preventive measures influences both the sensitivity and specificity of the scales. Analysis of published studies on risk assessment scales reveals that, although some patients received preventive measures and others did not, this was not taken into account. Consequently, generalization of those results is not possible. Some possible alternative designs for studying the validity of risk assessment scales are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available risk assessment scales are of only limited value, and there use will result in many patients being falsely identified as at risk or not at risk. Sensitivity and specificity criteria are not the most appropriate tools to validate risk assessment scales. A risk assessment scale should be evaluated in combination with the preventive measures used.     

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.     

Validity and reliability of the braden scale and the influence of other risk factors: a multi-centre prospective study

The Braden scale is one of the most intensively studied risk assessment scales used in identifying the risk of developing pressure sores. However, not all studies show that the sensitivity and specificity of this scale is sufficient. This study, therefore, investigated whether adding new risk factors can enhance the sensitivity and specificity of the Braden scale. The Braden scale was tested in a prospective multi-centre design. The nurses of 11 wards filled in the Braden scale every 5 days for each patient who was admitted without pressure sores and who had a probable stay of at least 10 days. Based on a literature study and in-depth interviews with experts, the Braden scale was extended by the risk factor blood circulation. In addition, other risk factors, which are more or less stable patient characteristics, were measured during the admission of the patient. Independent research assistants measured the presence of pressure sores twice a week. As the external criterion for the risk of developing pressure sores, the presence of pressure sores and/or the use of preventive activities was used. Results showed that the original Braden scale was a reliable instrument and that the sensitivity and specificity was sufficient. However, reformulating the factors moisture and nutrition, and adding the risk factor age could enhance the sensitivity and specificity. Furthermore, results showed that the factors sensory perception, and friction and shear were especially important risk factors for the Braden scale. In fact, using only the factors sensory perception, friction and shear, moisture (a reformulated factor) and age give the highest explained variance of the risk of developing pressure sores. The added risk factor blood circulation, did not enhance the sensitivity and specificity of the original Braden scale. Suggestions are given on how to use risk assessment scales in practice.     

两种评估表对脊柱后路手术患者压疮预测效果的比较研究

目的:研究脊柱外科脊柱后路手术患者的压疮发生率,比较Braden和Norton两种评估表对脊柱后路手术患者压疮的预测效果。方法:选取脊柱外科后路手术患者100例,运用两种评估表对其进行测评,在术后的0h、24h和72h分别观察和记录压疮的发生情况,计算各个量表的灵敏度和特异度。结果:压疮发生率为7%,该研究中的患者Braden评估表具有良好的灵敏度和特异性。结论:脊柱后路手术患者压疮的发生率较高,应用Braden评估表可以较好地预测压疮的发生。