Clinical trial of the Braden Scale on an acute care medical unit.

G D Salvadalena, M L Snyder, K E Brogdon
{"title":"Clinical trial of the Braden Scale on an acute care medical unit.","authors":"G D Salvadalena,&nbsp;M L Snyder,&nbsp;K E Brogdon","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients represent a significant challenge to the health professionals who care for these patients. This challenge extends to the health care system as a whole because of the staggering costs associated with pressure ulcer resolution. Although the relative benefits of various treatment methods have long been debated, intervention before ulcer formation clearly stands as the most efficacious approach to this problem. The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk, a recently developed paper tool, was evaluated in our acute care medical unit for its ability to predict pressure ulcer occurrence. The sensitivity of the Braden Scale in this evaluation was much lower than that reported in other published studies. The Braden Scale was less effective than the nurse judgment prediction method, the current prevailing prediction method at this institution. The gravity of these results, however, is unclear because of the questionable incidence of ulcers in this study, which may be artificially high due to permissive criteria used in the identification of stage 1 ulcers. We determined that the lack of unequivocally defined criteria for the identification of stage 1 ulcers may contribute to variance between studies. We also found that intervention measures were used only 27% of the time after the identification of patients at risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":77205,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ET nursing : official publication, International Association for Enterostomal Therapy","volume":"19 5","pages":"160-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1992-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of ET nursing : official publication, International Association for Enterostomal Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients represent a significant challenge to the health professionals who care for these patients. This challenge extends to the health care system as a whole because of the staggering costs associated with pressure ulcer resolution. Although the relative benefits of various treatment methods have long been debated, intervention before ulcer formation clearly stands as the most efficacious approach to this problem. The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk, a recently developed paper tool, was evaluated in our acute care medical unit for its ability to predict pressure ulcer occurrence. The sensitivity of the Braden Scale in this evaluation was much lower than that reported in other published studies. The Braden Scale was less effective than the nurse judgment prediction method, the current prevailing prediction method at this institution. The gravity of these results, however, is unclear because of the questionable incidence of ulcers in this study, which may be artificially high due to permissive criteria used in the identification of stage 1 ulcers. We determined that the lack of unequivocally defined criteria for the identification of stage 1 ulcers may contribute to variance between studies. We also found that intervention measures were used only 27% of the time after the identification of patients at risk.

布雷登量表在急症医疗单位的临床试验。
住院患者的压疮对照顾这些患者的卫生专业人员来说是一个重大挑战。这一挑战延伸到整个卫生保健系统,因为与压疮治疗相关的费用惊人。尽管各种治疗方法的相对益处一直存在争议,但在溃疡形成之前进行干预显然是解决这一问题最有效的方法。预测压疮风险的布雷登量表是一种最近开发的纸质工具,在我们的急症护理医疗单位评估其预测压疮发生的能力。布雷登量表在本评价中的敏感性远低于其他已发表的研究报告。布雷登量表的效果不如该机构目前流行的护士判断预测法。然而,这些结果的严重性尚不清楚,因为本研究中溃疡的发生率值得怀疑,由于在鉴定1期溃疡时使用了宽松的标准,溃疡的发生率可能人为地高了。我们确定,缺乏明确定义的1期溃疡鉴定标准可能导致研究之间的差异。我们还发现,在确定有风险的患者后,只有27%的时间使用了干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信