背景:预防压力伤害(PI)的第一步,这对重症监护病房(ICU)患者和医疗保健系统造成了沉重负担,是评估开发PI的风险。有效的风险评估量表对于评估风险和避免PI至关重要。
目的:比较Braden量表和Waterlow量表在ICU中的预测效度。
方法:多中心,前瞻性和横断面研究。
方法:我们在2021年4月至2022年10月中国甘肃省ICU住院的6416例患者中进行了这项研究。收集PI的发生率和特征。使用Braden和Waterlow量表确定了PI的风险评估。敏感性,特异性,阳性和阴性预测值,并比较了两种量表的受试者工作特征曲线下面积。
结果:在5903名患者中,72(1.2%)开发了PI。敏感性,特异性,阳性和阴性预测,Braden量表曲线下面积为77.8%,50.9%,分别为0.014和0.996和0.689。Waterlow量表的这些值为54.2%,71.1%,0.017、0.994和0.651。
结论:两种量表均可用于ICU患者PI的风险评估。然而,评估皮肤颜色的目视检查的准确性,患者的护理预防措施和评分者之间的不一致可能限制了预测有效性统计。
结论:两种量表均可用于PI风险评估。Braden量表的特异性低,Waterlow量表的敏感性低,提醒医务人员结合临床判断等客观指标使用。
■本研究旨在加强对PI的管理。患者和公众没有参与研究设计,分析,以及对数据或手稿准备的解释。
BACKGROUND: The first step in preventing pressure injuries (PIs), which represent a significant burden on intensive care unit (ICU) patients and the health care system, is to assess the risk for developing PIs. A valid risk assessment scale is essential to evaluate the risk and avoid PIs.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive validity of the Braden scale and Waterlow scale in ICUs.
METHODS: A multicentre, prospective and cross-sectional study.
METHODS: We conducted this study among 6416 patients admitted to ICUs in Gansu province of
China from April 2021 to October 2022. The incidence and characteristics of PIs were collected. The risk assessment of PIs was determined using the Braden and Waterlow scale. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the two scales were compared.
RESULTS: Out of 5903 patients, 72 (1.2%) developed PIs. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive, and the area under the curve of the Braden scale were 77.8%, 50.9%, 0.014 and 0.996, and 0.689, respectively. These values for the Waterlow scale were 54.2%, 71.1%, 0.017, 0.994 and 0.651.
CONCLUSIONS: Both scales could be used for risk assessment of PIs in ICU patients. However, the accuracy of visual inspection for assessment of skin colour, nursing preventive measures for patients and scales inter-rater inconsistency may limited the predictive validity statistics.
CONCLUSIONS: Both scales could be used for PIs risk assessment. The low specificity of the Braden scale and low sensitivity of the Waterlow scale remind medical staff to use them in combination with clinical judgement and other objective indicators.
UNASSIGNED: This study was designed to enhance the management of PIs. Patients and the general public were not involved in the study design, analysis, and interpretation of the data or manuscript preparation.