This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Anthony, D. Articles by Unsworth, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Anthony, D. Articles by Unsworth, J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

An evaluation of current risk assessment scales for decubitus ulcer in general inpatients and wheelchair users

Joanne Barnes

School of Health (Nursing), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Jim Unsworth

West Midlands Centre for Rehabilitation, Birmingham, UK

Objectives: To study the components of two risk assessment scales for decubitus ulcer risk, Waterlow and Braden, and of the Chailey score for the same purpose.

Design: Experimental study of patients at risk of developing decubitus ulcers.

Setting: The West Midlands and Yorkshire.

Subjects: One hundred and fifty wheelchair users from the West Midlands and 9022 patients from a District General Hospital in York, the latter consisting of all admissions to the hospital in a four-month period.

Interventions: Braden, Chailey scores (wheelchair users) and Waterlow scores (all subjects) measured.

Main outcome measures: Development of a pressure sore, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Results: Waterlow outperformed Braden for classification of wheelchair patients with respect to decubitus ulcer. The Chailey score performed randomly in this group. The sensitivity and specificity as seen in ROC curves was different for Waterlow scores for wheelchair users and general patients, the latter being much better classified. Only three items out of 11 in the Waterlow score appeared to have any classification ability in the wheelchair group.

Conclusions: Risk indicators used for general patients are probably poorly suited for wheelchair users. There is a need for large-scale predictive studies of wheelchair users and other groups to allow regression analysis of the subscales of risk indicators. From the provisional data of this study it appears that splitting patients by gender and into full and part-time wheelchair users classifies almost as well the much more complicated risk assessment tools currently available.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 12, No. 2, 136-142 (1998)
DOI: 10.1191/026921598674668876


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?