Comparison of pressure injury risk assessment outcomes using a structured assessment tool versus clinical judgement: A systematic review.
acute care
clinical judgement
clinical reasoning
hospitals
nursing
pressure injury
pressure ulcer
prevention
risk assessment
Journal
Journal of clinical nursing
ISSN: 1365-2702
Titre abrégé: J Clin Nurs
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9207302
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2023
May 2023
Historique:
revised:
15
10
2021
received:
09
09
2021
accepted:
16
11
2021
medline:
24
4
2023
pubmed:
3
12
2021
entrez:
2
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Whilst performing a pressure injury risk assessment is not in itself preventive, risk status identification is critical to inform the judicious implementation of prevention strategies. Risk assessment is mostly undertaken using a structured tool informed by clinical judgement, though there is a perception that use of clinical judgement alone may be sufficient. Within acute hospital settings, to identify differences in outcomes (risk status, preventive interventions) following nursing assessment of pressure injury risk when using a structured assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. Systematic review. EBSCO CINAHL Complete, EBSCO MEDLINE Complete, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid EMBASE. Primary research relevant to the objectives was eligible for inclusion. Databases were searched in February 2021 (limits: date 2010-2020, English language, adults). Two reviewers undertook the review process, with a third as arbitrator. Appraisal was undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Included studies are synthesised narratively. Reporting is in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. Five moderate to high-quality studies were included. Synthesis was limited by heterogeneity. Several risk assessment tools and methods of clinical judgement were used. Three studies reported pressure injury risk status using both assessment approaches, but in only one did nurses undertake both. Risk status, as identified by each method, varied and was sometimes contradictory. Three studies reported some elements of preventive intervention prescription and/or implementation following risk assessment, but comparison between approaches was limited. Some research suggests that risk status varies across different methods of pressure injury risk assessment, but it is unclear what impact this has on preventive intervention use. Risk status was not well linked to preventive interventions. Research is warranted to examine the influence that each approach to risk assessment alone and combined has on identified risk and preventive intervention prescription and implementation. A protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021224747).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Whilst performing a pressure injury risk assessment is not in itself preventive, risk status identification is critical to inform the judicious implementation of prevention strategies. Risk assessment is mostly undertaken using a structured tool informed by clinical judgement, though there is a perception that use of clinical judgement alone may be sufficient.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Within acute hospital settings, to identify differences in outcomes (risk status, preventive interventions) following nursing assessment of pressure injury risk when using a structured assessment tool compared to clinical judgement.
DESIGN
METHODS
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
METHODS
EBSCO CINAHL Complete, EBSCO MEDLINE Complete, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid EMBASE.
METHODS
METHODS
Primary research relevant to the objectives was eligible for inclusion. Databases were searched in February 2021 (limits: date 2010-2020, English language, adults). Two reviewers undertook the review process, with a third as arbitrator. Appraisal was undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Included studies are synthesised narratively. Reporting is in accordance with the PRISMA Statement.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Five moderate to high-quality studies were included. Synthesis was limited by heterogeneity. Several risk assessment tools and methods of clinical judgement were used. Three studies reported pressure injury risk status using both assessment approaches, but in only one did nurses undertake both. Risk status, as identified by each method, varied and was sometimes contradictory. Three studies reported some elements of preventive intervention prescription and/or implementation following risk assessment, but comparison between approaches was limited.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Some research suggests that risk status varies across different methods of pressure injury risk assessment, but it is unclear what impact this has on preventive intervention use. Risk status was not well linked to preventive interventions. Research is warranted to examine the influence that each approach to risk assessment alone and combined has on identified risk and preventive intervention prescription and implementation.
REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
A protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021224747).
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
1674-1690Informations de copyright
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Al-ghraiybah, T., Sim, J., & Lago, L. (2021). The relationship between the nursing practice environment and five nursing-sensitive patient outcomes in acute care hospitals: A systematic review. Nursing Open, 8(5), 2262-2271. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.828
Anthony, D., Parboteeah, S., Saleh, M., & Papanikolaou, P. (2008). Norton, Waterlow and Braden scores: A review of the literature and a comparison between scores and clinical judgement. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(5), 646-653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02029.x
Aromataris, E., & Munn, Z. (Eds). (2020). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01
Balzer, K., Kremer, L., Junghans, A., Halfens, R. J. G., Dassen, T., & Kottner, J. (2014). What patient characteristics guide nurses' clinical judgement on pressure ulcer risk? A mixed methods study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(5), 703-716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.09.005.
Bergstrom, N., Braden, B., Laguzza, A., & Holman, V. (1987). The Braden scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Nursing Research, 36(4), 205-210.
Black, J. M., Edsberg, L. E., Baharestani, M. M., Langemo, D., Goldberg, M., McNichol, L., Cuddigan, J. & The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (2011). Pressure ulcers: avoidable or unavoidable? results of the national pressure ulcer advisory panel consensus conference. Ostomy Wound Management, 57(2), 24-37.
Braden, B. J., & Maklebust, J. (2005). Preventing pressure ulcers with the Braden scale: An update on this easy-to-use tool that assesses a patient's risk. The American Journal of Nursing, 105(6), 70-72.
Charlier, C. (2001). Prevalence, incidence and risk: A study of pressure ulcers at a rurual base hospital. Primary Intention: the Australian Journal of Wound Management, 9(1), 12-21.
Defloor, T., & Grypdonck, M. (2005). Pressure ulcers: Validation of two risk assessment scales. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 14(3), 373-382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.01058.x
Edsberg, L. E., Langemo, D., Baharestani, M. M., Posthauer, M. E., & Goldberg, M. (2014). Unavoidable pressure injury: State of science and consensus outcomes. Journal of Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing, 41(4), 313-334. https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000000050
European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel [EPUAP], National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel [NPIAP] & Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance [PPPIA] (2019). Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers/injuries: Clinical practice guideline. The international guideline. EPUAP, NPIAP & PPPIA.
Fulbrook, P., & Anderson, A. (2016). Pressure injury risk assessment in intensive care: Comparison of inter-rater reliability of the COMHON (Concious level, Mobility, Haemodynamics, Oxygenation, Nutrition) Index with three scales. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(3), 680-692. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12825
Fulbrook, P., Lawrence, P., & Miles, S. (2019). Australian nurses’ knowledge of pressure injury prevention and management: A cross-sectional survey. Journal of Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing, 46(2), 106-112. https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000000508
García-Fernández, F. P., Pancorbo-Hidalgo, P. L. & Agreda, J. J. S. (2014). Predictive capacity of risk assessment scales and clinical judgment for pressure ulcers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nursing, 41(1), 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.WON.0000438014.90734.a2
Goldstone, L. A., & Goldstone, J. (1982). The Norton score: An early warning of pressure sores? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 7(5), 419-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1982.tb00258.x
Gould, D., Goldstone, L., Gammon, J., Kelly, D., & Maidwell, A. (2002). Establishing the validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: a novel approach using illustrated patient scenarios. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 39(2), 215-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7489(01)00012-8
Gould, D., Goldstone, L., Kelly, D., & Gammon, J. (2004). Examining the validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: A replication study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 41(3), 331-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2003.10.005
Han, Y., Jin, Y., Jin, T., Lee, S., & Lee, J. (2019). Impact of pressure injuries on patient outcomes in a Korean hospital: A case-control study. Journal of Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing, 46(3), 194-200. https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000000528
Jiang, L., Li, L., & Lommel, L. (2020). Nurses’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours related to pressure injury prevention: A large-scale cross-sectional survey in mainland China. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(17-18), 3311-3324. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15358
Joanna Briggs Institute (2020). Critical appraisal tools. https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
Johansen, E., Moore, Z., van Etten, M., & Strapp, H. (2014). Pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention: What difference does a risk scale make? A comparison between Norway and Ireland. Journal of Wound Care, 23(7), 369-3708. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2014.23.7.369
Källman, U., & Suserud, B. (2009). Knowledge, attitudes and practice among nursing staff concerning pressure ulcer prevention and treatment - a survey in a Swedish healthcare setting. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 23(2), 334-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2008.00627.x
Kottner, J., & Dassen, T. (2010). Pressure ulcer risk assessment in critical care: Interrater reliability and validity studies of the Braden and Waterlow scales and subjective ratings in two intensive care units. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(6), 671-677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.11.005
Li, Z., Lin, F., Thalib, L., & Chaboyer, W. (2020). Global prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries in hospitalised adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 105, 103546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103546
Lovegrove, J., Fulbrook, P., & Miles, S. (2018). Prescription of pressure injury preventative interventions following risk assessment: An exploratory, descriptive study. International Wound Journal, 15(6), 985-992. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12965
Lovegrove, J., Fulbrook, P., & Miles, S. J. (2020). Relationship between prescription and documentation of pressure injury prevention interventions and their implementation: An exploratory, descriptive study. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 17(6), 465-475. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12473
Lovegrove, J., Fulbrook, P., Miles, S., & Steele, M. (2021). Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 122, 104027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104027
Lovegrove, J., Miles, S., & Fulbrook, P. (2018). The relationship between pressure ulcer risk assessment and preventative interventions: a systematic review. Journal of Wound Care, 27(12), 862-875. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2018.27.12.862
Moore, Z., Johansen, E., van Etten, M., Strapp, H., Solbakken, T., Smith, B. E., & Faulstich, J. (2015). Pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention practices: a cross-sectional comparative survey in Norway and Ireland. Journal of Wound Care, 24(8), 333-339. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2015.24.8.333
Moore, Z. E. H., & Patton, D. (2019). Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1, CD006471. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006471.pub4
Norton, D., McLaren, R., & Exton-Smith, A. N. (1962). An investigation of geriatric nursing problems in hospital. National Corporation for the Care of Old People.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffman, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Papanikolaou, P., Lyne, P., & Anthony, D. (2007). Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcers: A methodological review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(2), 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.01.015
Reilly, R., Evans, K., Gomersall, J., Gorham, G., Peters, M. D. J., Warren, S., O'Shea, R., Cass, A., & Brown, A. (2016). Effectiveness, cost effectiveness, acceptability and implementation barriers/enablers of chronic kidney disease management programs for Indigenous people in Australia, New Zealand and Canada: A systematic review of mixed evidence. BMC Health Services Research, 16, 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1363-0
Saleh, M., Anthony, D., & Parboteeah, S. (2009). The impact of pressure ulcer risk assessment on patient outcomes among hospitalised patients. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18(13), 1923-1929. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02717.x
Samuriwo, R. (2012). Pressure ulcer prevention: The role of the multidisciplinary team. British Journal of Nursing, 21(5), S4-S13. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2012.21.Sup5.S4
Samuriwo, R., & Dowding, D. (2014). Nurses' pressure ulcer related judgements and decisions in clinical practice: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(12), 1667-1685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.04.009
Ven, S., Fulbrook, P., Miles, S., & Lovegrove, J. (2021). Pressure injury risk assessment using a structured risk assessment tool versus clinical judgement for adults admitted to acute hospital settings: A systematic review. PROSPERO, 2021, CRD42021224747. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=224747
Voz, A., Williams, C., & Wilson, M. (2011). Who is turning the patients? A survey study. Journal of Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing, 38(4), 413-418. https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0b013e318220b6ec
Wassel, C. L., Delhougne, G., Gayle, J. A., Dreyfus, J., & Larson, B. (2020). Risk of readmissions, mortality, and hospital-acquired conditions across hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) stages in a US National Hospital Discharge database. International Wound Journal, 17(6), 1924-1934. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13482
Waterlow, J. (2005a). From costly treatment to cost-effective prevention: using Waterlow. British Journal of Community Nursing, 10(Sup3), S25-S30. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjcn.2005.10.Sup3.19696
Waterlow, J. (2005b). Waterlow score card. http://www.judy-waterlow.co.uk/the-waterlow-score-card.htm
Webster, J., Coleman, K., Mudge, A., Marquart, L., Gardner, G., Stankiewicz, M., Kirby, J., Vellacott, C., Horton-Breshears, M., & McClymont, A. (2011). Pressure ulcers: effectiveness of risk-assessment tools. A randomised controlled trial (the ULCER trial). BMJ Quality & Safety, 20(4), 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2010.043109
Weller, C. D., Gershenzon, E. R., Evans, S. M., Team, V. & McNeil, J. J. (2018). Pressure injury identification, measurement, coding, and reporting: Key challenges and opportunities. International Wound Journal, 15(3), 417-423. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12879