{"title":"关于压伤分类和分期的评估员间可靠性研究。","authors":"Ayişe Karadaǧ, Vildan Çakar, Ayşe Sılanur Demir","doi":"10.1016/j.jtv.2024.09.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The first step in effective management of pressure injuries (PIs) is to assess, categorize and stage correctly.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to examine the agreement regarding the classification and staging of PIs among nurse academicians working on chronic wounds and with different stage of expertise.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three nurse academicians were assigned as assessors according to Benner's stages of clinical competence (Competent, Proficient, and Expert). The assessors independently evaluated PIs photographs (n = 694). The assessors then met for the wounds where there was disagreement, and a Consensus agreement was reached. Kappa Statistics analysed the agreement between two assessors; Fleiss Kappa Statistics analysed the agreement between Competent, Proficient, Expert, and Consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Statistically, almost perfect agreement was obtained between Competent, Proficient, Expert, and Consensus assessments, respectively (Ƙ = 0.871; p < 0.001, Ƙ = 0.842; p < 0.001, Ƙ = 0.937; p < 0.001). The highest agreement between the assessors were Unstageable PIs, Deep Tissue PIs, and Stage 3 PIs respectively. The most common disagreements were between Deep Tissue PIs and Stage 1 PIs, and between Deep Tissue PIs and Stage 2 PIs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the study, it was found that the categorization, and staging of PIs had varying degrees of reliability among the assesors, although at a statistically acceptable level.</p>","PeriodicalId":17392,"journal":{"name":"Journal of tissue viability","volume":" ","pages":"786-791"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An inter-assessor reliability study on the categorization and staging of pressure injuries.\",\"authors\":\"Ayişe Karadaǧ, Vildan Çakar, Ayşe Sılanur Demir\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jtv.2024.09.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The first step in effective management of pressure injuries (PIs) is to assess, categorize and stage correctly.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to examine the agreement regarding the classification and staging of PIs among nurse academicians working on chronic wounds and with different stage of expertise.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three nurse academicians were assigned as assessors according to Benner's stages of clinical competence (Competent, Proficient, and Expert). The assessors independently evaluated PIs photographs (n = 694). The assessors then met for the wounds where there was disagreement, and a Consensus agreement was reached. Kappa Statistics analysed the agreement between two assessors; Fleiss Kappa Statistics analysed the agreement between Competent, Proficient, Expert, and Consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Statistically, almost perfect agreement was obtained between Competent, Proficient, Expert, and Consensus assessments, respectively (Ƙ = 0.871; p < 0.001, Ƙ = 0.842; p < 0.001, Ƙ = 0.937; p < 0.001). The highest agreement between the assessors were Unstageable PIs, Deep Tissue PIs, and Stage 3 PIs respectively. The most common disagreements were between Deep Tissue PIs and Stage 1 PIs, and between Deep Tissue PIs and Stage 2 PIs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the study, it was found that the categorization, and staging of PIs had varying degrees of reliability among the assesors, although at a statistically acceptable level.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of tissue viability\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"786-791\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of tissue viability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtv.2024.09.009\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of tissue viability","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtv.2024.09.009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:目的:本研究旨在考察从事慢性伤口工作的不同专业阶段的院士级护士对压力性损伤(PIs)的分类和分期的一致意见:方法:根据 Benner 的临床能力阶段(胜任、精通和专家),指派三名院士护士担任评估员。评估员独立评估 PIs 照片(n = 694)。然后,评估人员针对存在分歧的伤口进行会诊,并达成一致意见。Kappa 统计法分析了两名评估员之间的一致性;Fleiss Kappa 统计法分析了胜任、熟练、专家和共识之间的一致性:从统计学角度看,胜任评估、熟练评估、专家评估和共识评估之间几乎完全一致(Ƙ = 0.871;p 结论:从统计学角度看,胜任评估、熟练评估、专家评估和共识评估之间几乎完全一致(Ƙ = 0.871;p 结论):研究发现,尽管在统计学上处于可接受的水平,但评估者对 PI 的分类和分期具有不同程度的可靠性。
An inter-assessor reliability study on the categorization and staging of pressure injuries.
Background: The first step in effective management of pressure injuries (PIs) is to assess, categorize and stage correctly.
Purpose: This study aims to examine the agreement regarding the classification and staging of PIs among nurse academicians working on chronic wounds and with different stage of expertise.
Methods: Three nurse academicians were assigned as assessors according to Benner's stages of clinical competence (Competent, Proficient, and Expert). The assessors independently evaluated PIs photographs (n = 694). The assessors then met for the wounds where there was disagreement, and a Consensus agreement was reached. Kappa Statistics analysed the agreement between two assessors; Fleiss Kappa Statistics analysed the agreement between Competent, Proficient, Expert, and Consensus.
Results: Statistically, almost perfect agreement was obtained between Competent, Proficient, Expert, and Consensus assessments, respectively (Ƙ = 0.871; p < 0.001, Ƙ = 0.842; p < 0.001, Ƙ = 0.937; p < 0.001). The highest agreement between the assessors were Unstageable PIs, Deep Tissue PIs, and Stage 3 PIs respectively. The most common disagreements were between Deep Tissue PIs and Stage 1 PIs, and between Deep Tissue PIs and Stage 2 PIs.
Conclusion: In the study, it was found that the categorization, and staging of PIs had varying degrees of reliability among the assesors, although at a statistically acceptable level.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Tissue Viability is the official publication of the Tissue Viability Society and is a quarterly journal concerned with all aspects of the occurrence and treatment of wounds, ulcers and pressure sores including patient care, pain, nutrition, wound healing, research, prevention, mobility, social problems and management.
The Journal particularly encourages papers covering skin and skin wounds but will consider articles that discuss injury in any tissue. Articles that stress the multi-professional nature of tissue viability are especially welcome. We seek to encourage new authors as well as well-established contributors to the field - one aim of the journal is to enable all participants in tissue viability to share information with colleagues.