压疮风险评估——简单还是复杂?

Decubitus Pub Date : 1992-07-01
P Hergenroeder, C Mosher, D Sevo
{"title":"压疮风险评估——简单还是复杂?","authors":"P Hergenroeder,&nbsp;C Mosher,&nbsp;D Sevo","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A descriptive comparison study was carried out to determine whether there was a difference between a staff nurse's single-item pressure ulcer risk assessment and a risk assessment using the Braden Scale. Seventy-two medical patients participated in the study. Statistical analysis of the data indicated nurses were accurate in predicting pressure ulcer risk with a simple YES/NO answer. The mean Braden Score for those patients indicated at risk by the nurse was 14.45, and 20.24 for those assessed to be not at risk. This study indicates that nurses' good judgement is as reliable as more complicated tools in determining pressure ulcer risk. Further studies comparing risk assessment tools are recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":77095,"journal":{"name":"Decubitus","volume":"5 4","pages":"47-8, 50-2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1992-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pressure ulcer risk assessment--simple or complex?\",\"authors\":\"P Hergenroeder,&nbsp;C Mosher,&nbsp;D Sevo\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A descriptive comparison study was carried out to determine whether there was a difference between a staff nurse's single-item pressure ulcer risk assessment and a risk assessment using the Braden Scale. Seventy-two medical patients participated in the study. Statistical analysis of the data indicated nurses were accurate in predicting pressure ulcer risk with a simple YES/NO answer. The mean Braden Score for those patients indicated at risk by the nurse was 14.45, and 20.24 for those assessed to be not at risk. This study indicates that nurses' good judgement is as reliable as more complicated tools in determining pressure ulcer risk. Further studies comparing risk assessment tools are recommended.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77095,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Decubitus\",\"volume\":\"5 4\",\"pages\":\"47-8, 50-2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1992-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Decubitus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Decubitus","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

摘要

进行描述性比较研究,以确定工作人员护士单项压疮风险评估与使用布雷登量表的风险评估之间是否存在差异。72名病人参与了这项研究。数据的统计分析表明,护士预测压疮风险准确,回答简单的是/否。护士指出有危险的患者的平均布雷登评分为14.45分,评估为无危险的患者的平均布雷登评分为20.24分。本研究表明,在确定压疮风险方面,护士的良好判断与更复杂的工具一样可靠。建议进一步研究比较风险评估工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pressure ulcer risk assessment--simple or complex?

A descriptive comparison study was carried out to determine whether there was a difference between a staff nurse's single-item pressure ulcer risk assessment and a risk assessment using the Braden Scale. Seventy-two medical patients participated in the study. Statistical analysis of the data indicated nurses were accurate in predicting pressure ulcer risk with a simple YES/NO answer. The mean Braden Score for those patients indicated at risk by the nurse was 14.45, and 20.24 for those assessed to be not at risk. This study indicates that nurses' good judgement is as reliable as more complicated tools in determining pressure ulcer risk. Further studies comparing risk assessment tools are recommended.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信