两种压疮危险评估表预测效果的比较研究

[目的]测量并比较Waterlow压疮危险评估表和Braden修订版压疮危险评估表的预测效果。[方法]分别用两种评估表对332例病人进行评分，分析不同临界值时敏感性、特异性、阳性预测价值、阴性预测价值。[结果]Braden修订版压疮危险评估表以19分为临界值、Waterlow压疮危险评估表以15分为临界值时敏感性、特异性、阳性预测价值、阴性预测价值等指标间能达到较好的平衡，且Braden修订版压疮危险评估表各指标均大于Waterlow压疮危险评估表；Braden修订版压疮危险评估表的ROC曲线下面积略高于waterlow压疮危险评估表。[结论]Braden修订版压疮危险评估表和Waterlow压疮危险评估表都有较好的预测效果，尤其以Braden修订版效果更优。     

3种压疮危险评估表对脊髓损伤病人压疮预测效果的比较研究

[目的]比较Braden评估表、Norton评估表、Waterlow评估表3种压疮危险评估表对脊髓损伤病人的压疮预测效果。[方法]选取脊髓损伤病人155例,运用3种量表对每例病人进行连续评估,计算各量表的灵敏度、特异度、预测值和ROC曲线下面积。[结果]3种量表的最佳临界值分别为14分、14分和20分。ROC曲线下面积分别为0.891、0.850和0.798。[结论]Braden评估表对脊髓损伤病人压疮的预测效果较好。     

三种评估表对骶骨肿瘤术后患者压疮预测效果的研究

目的比较Braden评估表、Waterlow评估表、医院自制压疮评估表对骶骨肿瘤术后患者压疮预测的应用效果。方法将符合纳入标准的248例患者运用3种量表对每例患者进行压疮危险因素连续评估,计算各评估量表首、末次灵敏性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值与评价量表间的一致性。结果248例中,压疮发生率为8.75%;Braden评估表、Waterlow压疮危险评估表、医院自制压疮评估表3种评估表最佳临界值:首次评估临界值依次为18、16和21分,末次评估为17、19和24分。Pearson相关性分析显示3种压疮危险评估表的首末次评分具有显著相关(P0.01)。首次及末次评分的总体一致性差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 Braden评估表对骶骨肿瘤术后患者压疮危险因素的预测能力较好,是临床较好的选择。     

3种压疮危险评估表对脊髓损伤病人压疮预测效果的比较研究

[目的]比较Braden评估表、Norton评估表、Waterlow评估表3种压疮危险评估表对脊髓损伤病人的压疮预测效果。[方法]选取脊髓损伤病人155例,运用3种量表对每例病人进行连续评估,计算各量表的灵敏度、特异度、预测值和ROC曲线下面积。[结果]3种量表的最佳临界值分别为14分、14分和20分。ROC曲线下面积分别为0.891、0.850和0.798。[结论]Braden评估表对脊髓损伤病人压疮的预测效果较好。     

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。     

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.     

3种评估表对神经内科住院病人压疮预测效果的比较研究

[目的]比较Braden Scale、Waterlow Scale和华西医科大学评估表(WCUMSS cales)3种压疮危险评估量表对神经内科住院病人压疮的预测效果。[方法]选取神经内科住院病人439例,3名护士分别运用3种评估量表同时对每例病人进行动态评估,计算各量表的灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、ROC曲线下面积。[结果]3种评估量表的最佳临界值分别为17分、10分、22分,WCUMS Scale评估表曲线下面积>0.9。[结论]WCUMS Scale评估表对神经内科住院病人压疮预测效果较好。     

3种评估表预测压疮效果的比较研究

目的:比较3种压疮危险性评估表Braden评估表(修订版)、Norton评估表、华西医科大学评估表(West China University medical Sciences Scale, 简称WCUMS评估表)的预测效果,寻找一种最适合国情、有效而可靠的压疮评估表,合理利用人力资源,及时指导护士对压疮高危患者采取预防性护理措施.方法:3名护士分别运用3种评估表,同时、独立地对同一病人进行评估,共有222名病人接受评估.结果: Braden评估表(修订版)与Norton评估表、WCUMS评估表比较,能较好平衡敏感度和特异度(首末次评分临界值均为22分).3种评估表都有相对较高的阴性预测值(≥98%),但阳性预测值均偏低.结论:Braden评估表(修订版)压疮预测效果较好,可以在压疮高发的人群中应用.     

ICU病人压疮危险因素预测量表的系统性回顾(英文)

[目的]本研究旨在描述及确定用于ICU病人最有效的压疮危险因素预测量表。[方法]采用系统性文献回顾方法全面检索1996年—2010年相关文献,数据库包括Medline,CINAHL,Journals@Ovid,Science Direct及中文CAJ。共检出有效研究论文11篇,8篇英文,3篇中文;分析、比较和检视4个常用于ICU病人的压疮危险因素预测量表的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值以及各自最佳临界值。[结果]Braden量表为最常用于ICU病人压疮危险因素预测量表,但临界值设定各异;方差分析结果4个量表的4项预测指标之间无统计学意义。Cubbin&Jackson量表的敏感性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值均高于其他3个量表。[结论]虽然Braden量表在国内外均较为常用,但Cubbin&Jackson量表是专门为ICU病人而设置,有较好的预测能力及较固定的临界值,但需要在中国人群中作进一步的验证。     

A risk assessment scale for the prediction of pressure sore development: reliability and validity

BACKGROUND: The ability to assess the risk of a patient developing pressure sores is a major issue in pressure sore prevention. Risk assessment scales should be valid, reliable and easy to use in clinical practice. AIM: To develop further a risk assessment scale, for predicting pressure sore development and, in addition, to present the validity and reliability of this scale. METHODS: The risk assessment pressure sore (RAPS) scale, includes 12 variables, five from the re-modified Norton scale, three from the Braden scale and three from other research results. Five hundred and thirty patients without pressure sores on admission were included in the study and assessed over a maximum period of 12 weeks. Internal consistency was examined by item analysis and equivalence by interrater reliability. To estimate equivalence, 10 pairs of nurses assessed a total of 116 patients. The underlying dimensions of the scale were examined by factor analysis. The predictive validity was examined by determination of sensitivity, specificity and predictive value. RESULTS: Two variables were excluded as a result of low item-item and item-total correlations. The average percentage of agreement and the intraclass correlation between raters were 70% and 0.83, respectively. The factor analysis gave three factors, with a total variance explained of 65.1%. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value were high among patients at medical and infection wards. CONCLUSION: The RAPS scale is a reliable scale for predicting pressure sore development. The validity is especially good for patients undergoing treatment in medical wards and wards for infectious diseases. This indicates that the RAPS scale may be useful in clinical practice for these groups of patients. For patients undergoing surgical treatment, further analysis will be performed.     

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。     

Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review

AIM: This paper reports a systematic review conducted to determine the effectiveness of the use of risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention in clinical practice, degree of validation of risk assessment scales, and effectiveness of risk assessment scales as indicators of risk of developing a pressure ulcer. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are an important health problem. The best strategy to avoid them is prevention. There are several risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention which complement nurses' clinical judgement. However, some of these have not undergone proper validation. METHOD: A systematic bibliographical review was conducted, based on a search of 14 databases in four languages using the keywords pressure ulcer or pressure sore or decubitus ulcer and risk assessment. Reports of clinical trials or prospective studies of validation were included in the review. FINDINGS: Thirty-three studies were included in the review, three on clinical effectiveness and the rest on scale validation. There is no decrease in pressure ulcer incidence was found which might be attributed to use of an assessment scale. However, the use of scales increases the intensity and effectiveness of prevention interventions. The Braden Scale shows optimal validation and the best sensitivity/specificity balance (57.1%/67.5%, respectively); its score is a good pressure ulcer risk predictor (odds ratio = 4.08, CI 95% = 2.56-6.48). The Norton Scale has reasonable scores for sensitivity (46.8%), specificity (61.8%) and risk prediction (OR = 2.16, CI 95% = 1.03-4.54). The Waterlow Scale offers a high sensitivity score (82.4%), but low specificity (27.4%); with a good risk prediction score (OR = 2.05, CI 95% = 1.11-3.76). Nurses' clinical judgement (only considered in three studies) gives moderate scores for sensitivity (50.6%) and specificity (60.1%), but is not a good pressure ulcer risk predictor (OR = 1.69, CI 95% = 0.76-3.75). CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that the use of risk assessment scales decreases pressure ulcer incidence. The Braden Scale offers the best balance between sensitivity and specificity and the best risk estimate. Both the Braden and Norton Scales are more accurate than nurses' clinical judgement in predicting pressure ulcer risk.     

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.     

A clinical trial of the Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk

The purpose of this article was to describe the protocol by which predictive instruments can be tested for validity and to evaluate the usefulness of an instrument for predicting pressure sore risk in an AICU. The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk was described. Methods for measuring predictive validity and for calculating sensitivity, specificity, and per cent predictive value of positive and negative tests were discussed. Sixty consecutively admitted AICU patients who were pressure sore free were rated for pressure sore risk within 24 to 72 hours after admission. The skin condition of each patient was systematically assessed every 2 days. Twenty-four subjects developed pressure sores during the study period. The critical cut-off point at which the patient could be judged to be at risk for pressure sore formation was a Braden Scale score equal to or less than 16. The sensitivity and specificity of the scale at this score were 83 to 64 per cent, respectively. The per cent predictive value of a positive and negative test were 61 and 85 per cent, respectively. The Braden Scale compared favorably with the Norton Scale in respect to sensitivity. The specificity, or the tendency of a scale to overpredict, was greater for the Norton than for the Braden Scale. The Norton Scale overpredicted by 64 per cent, whereas the Braden Scale overpredicted by 36 per cent. This difference may be important clinically if all patients who were judged to be at risk received additional nursing care or protective devices. A greater number of patients may receive unnecessary and expensive treatments using the Norton Scale.     

压疮危险因素评估表预测不同患者群体压疮发生的研究

目的比较压疮危险因素评估表（Norton ulcer risk assessment scale,以下简称Norton量表）对不同年龄组及不同病区患者压疮的预测效果。方法运用Norton量表对内外科住院患者进行连续评估,计算量表对不同患者群体预测的灵敏度、特异性、预测值。结果 Norton量表对老年患者灵敏度96.96%、特异性87.68%、阳性预测值22.96%,阴性预测值99.87%;对中青年患者灵敏度97.37%、特异性96.73%、阳性预测值12.05%、阴性预测值99.98%,Norton量表对老年患者及中青年患者压疮预测均具有较高的灵敏度和特异性。Norton量表对内科、外科及不同病区患者均具有较高的预测灵敏度;对神经外科、ICU患者预测特异性较低。结论 Norton量表对不同年龄组和不同病区患者皆具有较好的预测效果,内外科各病区可以统一使用Norton量表对患者进行压疮高危筛查和评估。     

Pressure ulcers: validation of two risk assessment scales

Aims and objectives. To compare the predictive value of two pressure ulcer risk assessment scales (Braden and Norton) and of clinical judgement. To evaluate the impact of effective preventive measures on the predictive validity of the two risk assessment scales. Methods. Of the 1772 participating older patients, 314 were randomly selected and assigned to the ‘turning’ group; 1458 patients were assigned to the ‘non‐turning’ group. Using the Braden and the Norton scale the pressure ulcer risk was scored twice weekly during a four‐week period. Clinical assessment was monitored daily. The patients at risk in the ‘turning’ group (Braden score <17 or Norton score <12) were randomly assigned to a two‐hour turning schedule or to a four‐hour turning schedule in combination with a pressure‐reducing mattress. The ‘non‐turning’ group received preventive care based on the clinical judgement of the nurses. Results. The diagnostic accuracy was similar for both scales. If nurses act according to risk assessment scales, 80% of the patients would unnecessarily receive preventive measures. The use of effective preventive measures decreased the predictive value of the risk assessment scales. Nurses predicted pressure ulcer development less well than the Braden and the Norton scale. Only activity, sensory perception, skin condition and existence of old pressure ulcers were significant predictors of pressure ulcer lesions. Relevance to clinical practice. The effectiveness of the Norton and Braden scales is very low. Much needless work is done and expensive material is wrongly allocated. The use of effective preventive measures decreases the predictive value of the risk assessment scales. Although the performance of the risk assessment scales is poor, using a risk assessment tool seems to be a better alternative than relying on the clinical judgement of the nurses.     

Braden压疮预防措施钟表在压疮风险患者中应用效果分析

目的评价Braden压疮预防措施钟表在压疮风险患者中应用的效果。方法 2012年10月~2013年9月在我院住院期间压疮Braden评分≤16分的成人压疮风险患者682例进行观察,2012年10月~2013年3月302例患者作为对照组,按照《基础护理学》第四版为指导对压疮预防实施常规护理;2013年4月~9月380例患者作为实验组,以《成人压疮预测和预防实践指南》为依据制作的Braden压疮预防措施钟表实施护理。比较两组压疮风险患者压疮发生率。结果 Braden压疮预防措施钟表实施后,压疮风险患者院内获得性压疮发生率降低(P0.05)。结论 Braden压疮预防措施钟表的应用,可有效降低院内压疮发生率,规范了护士对不同分值压疮风险患者采取的护理措施,该表内容简洁、使用方便,可应用于临床护理。     

Predictive validity of the Braden Scale,Norton Scale,and Waterlow Scale in the Czech Republic

The aim of this study was to determine the predictive validity of the Braden, Norton, and Waterlow scales in 2 long‐term care departments in the Czech Republic. Assessing the risk for developing pressure ulcers is the first step in their prevention. At present, many scales are used in clinical practice, but most of them have not been properly validated yet (for example, the Modified Norton Scale in the Czech Republic). In the Czech Republic, only the Braden Scale has been validated so far. This is a prospective comparative instrument testing study. A random sample of 123 patients was recruited. The predictive validity of the pressure ulcer risk assessment scales was evaluated based on sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The data were collected from April to August 2014. In the present study, the best predictive validity values were observed for the Norton Scale, followed by the Braden Scale and the Waterlow Scale, in that order. We recommended that the above 3 pressure ulcer risk assessment scales continue to be evaluated in the Czech clinical setting.