FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerJournal of Clinical Nursing

Validity and reliability of the Waterlow scale for assessing pressure injury risk in critical adult patients: A multi‐centre cohort study

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the predictive validity and reliability of the Waterlow scale in critically adult hospitalised patients.

Design

A multi-centre cohort study.

Methods

This study was conducted in 72 intensive care units (ICUs) in 38 tertiary hospitals in Gansu Province, China. All adults admitted to the ICU for greater than or equal to 24 h without pressure injury (PI) on admission were screened by the Waterlow scale on admission, during ICU stay and ICU discharge from April 2021 to February 2023. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine a potential cut-off value for critical adult hospitalised patients. Cut-off values were then determined using Youden's index, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were calculated based on these cut-off values. Test–retest reliability was used to evaluate inter-rater reliability.

Results

A total of 5874 critical patients on admission were included, and 5125 of them were assessed regularly. The area under curve (AUC) was 0.623 (95% CI, 0.574–0.690), with a cut-off score of 19 showing the best balance among sensitivity of 62.7%, specificity of 57.4%, positive predictive value of 2.07% and negative predictive value of 99.08%. The test–retest reliability between the first assessment and the regular assessment was 0.447.

Conclusions

The Waterlow scale shows insufficient predictive validity and reliability in discriminating critical adults at risk of PI development. To further modify the items of the Waterlow scale, exploring specific risk factors for PI in the ICU and clarifying their impact degree was necessary. Risk predictive models or better tools are inevitable in the future.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patients or family members supported nurses with PI risk assessment, skin examination and other activities during the inquiry.

The incidence and risk factors of unplanned removal of peripherally inserted central catheters among adult patients: A multi‐centre cohort study

Abstract

Aims and Objectives

(i) To estimate the national incidence of unplanned removal of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in China. (ii) To explore the associated risk factors to provide evidence for the prevention.

Design

A multi-centre prospective cohort study.

Methods

A representative sample of 3222 Chinese adult patients with successful PICC insertion was recruited for the PICC Safety Management Research (PATH) using a two-stage cluster sampling method from December 2020 to June 2022. Sixty hospitals from seven Chinese provinces representing all geographical regions were selected. Demographic information and PICC characteristics were collected using a standard online case report form. Risk factors for the unplanned removal of PICCs were assessed using a cause-specific hazard model and verified using a sub-distribution hazard model. STROBE guidelines were followed in reporting this study.

Results

Three thousand one hundred and sixty-six patients were included in the final analysis with a mean age of 59 years and a total of 344,247 catheter days. The incidence of unplanned removal was 10.04%. Female, with thrombosis history, PICC insertion due to infusion failure, valved catheter and double-lumen catheter were risk factors, whereas longer insertion and exposure length were protective factors in the cause-specific hazard model. Higher BMI became an independent risk factor in the sub-distribution hazard model.

Conclusions

Unplanned removal of PICCs is a serious clinical challenge in China. Our findings call for prevention strategies targeting the identified risk factors.

Relevance to Clinical Practice

Our study characterised the epidemiology of unplanned removal of PICCs among Chinese adult inpatients, highlighting the need for prevention among this population and providing a basis for the formulation of relevant prevention strategies.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patients contributed through sharing their information required for the case report form. Healthcare professionals who provide direct care to the patient at each medical centre contributed by completing the online case report form.

Comparison of the predictive validity of the Braden and Waterlow scales in intensive care unit patients: A multicentre study

Abstract

Background

The first step in preventing pressure injuries (PIs), which represent a significant burden on intensive care unit (ICU) patients and the health care system, is to assess the risk for developing PIs. A valid risk assessment scale is essential to evaluate the risk and avoid PIs.

Objectives

To compare the predictive validity of the Braden scale and Waterlow scale in ICUs.

Design

A multicentre, prospective and cross-sectional study.

Methods

We conducted this study among 6416 patients admitted to ICUs in Gansu province of China from April 2021 to October 2022. The incidence and characteristics of PIs were collected. The risk assessment of PIs was determined using the Braden and Waterlow scale. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the two scales were compared.

Results

Out of 5903 patients, 72 (1.2%) developed PIs. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive, and the area under the curve of the Braden scale were 77.8%, 50.9%, 0.014 and 0.996, and 0.689, respectively. These values for the Waterlow scale were 54.2%, 71.1%, 0.017, 0.994 and 0.651.

Conclusions

Both scales could be used for risk assessment of PIs in ICU patients. However, the accuracy of visual inspection for assessment of skin colour, nursing preventive measures for patients and scales inter-rater inconsistency may limited the predictive validity statistics.

Relevance to Clinical Practice

Both scales could be used for PIs risk assessment. The low specificity of the Braden scale and low sensitivity of the Waterlow scale remind medical staff to use them in combination with clinical judgement and other objective indicators.

Patient or Public Contribution

This study was designed to enhance the management of PIs. Patients and the general public were not involved in the study design, analysis, and interpretation of the data or manuscript preparation.

❌