1995
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.1995.tb00200.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A critique of ‘at risk’ pressure sore assessment tools

Abstract: Summary This paper critiques pressure sore risk assessment tools. No attempt is made to describe individual tools in detail as this literature is available elsewhere. The economic case for risk assessment is presented along with the criteria for an effective risk assessment instrument. Reliability and validity studies are reviewed in relation to three risk assessment tools: Norton, Waterlow and Braden. Finally a number of issues related to threshold scores, research design and the need to view pressure sores… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0
2

Year Published

1998
1998
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
27
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The HAPU prevention program was planned during 2012, and the following interventions were • Braden scores 1 were grouped into risk categories (at risk, 15-18; moderate risk, 13-14; high risk, ≤12), 13 which were used to indicate specific steps for proper management of moisture, nutrition, mobility, friction, and shear in hospitalized patients.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The HAPU prevention program was planned during 2012, and the following interventions were • Braden scores 1 were grouped into risk categories (at risk, 15-18; moderate risk, 13-14; high risk, ≤12), 13 which were used to indicate specific steps for proper management of moisture, nutrition, mobility, friction, and shear in hospitalized patients.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The predictive value of a diagnostic test or risk scale, however, depends on the prevalence of the condition in the target population. Hence, in case of high prevalence levels, the probability that a positive test will better predict the condition increases (4) .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The latter, created in the United States in 1987, went through validation and adaptation to Portuguese and was also adapted to the pediatric population in the Braden Q version. This scale has been the most used and widely tested so far (4,(8)(9) , as it shows the best operational definition and demonstrates higher sensitivity and specificity levels than other scales, as it serves to assess six risk factors (sub-scales) in the client (1)(2)5,10) .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Esto ha permitido a diferentes autores (10,20,(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28) describir los requisitos que debe reunir la escala ideal o, lo que es igual, los criterios exigibles a una EVRUPP y, por tanto, los míni-mos necesarios para evaluar y validar una escala. Estos criterios serían:…”
Section: Objetivosunclassified