Conectar
To compare the predictive properties of the Jackson/Cubbin scale and Waterlow scales in intensive care unit patients. A multi-centre study. This study was conducted between April 2021 and February 2023 in 72 intensive care units of 38 tertiary hospitals in Gansu Province, China. All adults admitted to the intensive care unit for 24 hours or more without pressure injury on admission were screened using the Waterlow scale and Jackson/Cubbin scales in intensive care. Additionally, the negative predictive value, positive predictive value, sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristic curve with area under the curve of the Waterlow scale and Cubbin/Jackson scales were determined. The participant population for this study included 6203 patients. Predictive properties for the Jackson/Cubbin scales and Waterlow scales, respectively, were as follows: Cut-off scores, 28 versus 22; AUC, 0.859 versus 0.64; sensitivity, 92.4% versus 51.9%; specificity, 67.26% versus 71.46%; positive predictive value, 35% versus 23%; negative predictive value, 99.9% versus 99.1%. Both Waterlow scales and Jackson/Cubbin scales could predict pressure injury risk for patients in the intensive care unit. However, the Jackson/Cubbin scale demonstrated superior predictive properties than the Waterlow scale.
To evaluate the predictive validity and reliability of the Waterlow scale in critically adult hospitalised patients.
A multi-centre cohort study.
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.
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.
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.
Patients or family members supported nurses with PI risk assessment, skin examination and other activities during the inquiry.
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.
To compare the predictive validity of the Braden scale and Waterlow scale in ICUs.
A multicentre, prospective and cross-sectional study.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FreshRSS 