4.3 Article

Pressure ulcer incidence and Braden subscales: Retrospective cohort analysis in general wards of a Portuguese hospital

期刊

JOURNAL OF TISSUE VIABILITY
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 95-100

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtv.2018.01.002

关键词

Braden scale; Incidence; Nursing assessment; Portugal; Pressure ulcer; Risk assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To study the influence of Braden subscales scores (at the first pressure ulcer risk assessment) on pressure ulcer incidence using a univariate and a multivariate time to event analysis. Materials and methods: Retrospective cohort analysis of electronic health record database from adult patients admitted without pressure ulcer(s) to medical and surgical wards of a Portuguese hospital during 2012. The hazard ratio of developing a pressure ulcer during the length of inpatient stay was calculated by univariate Cox regression for each variable of interest and by multivariate Cox regression for the Braden subscales that were statistically significant. Results: This study included a sample of 6552 participants. During the length of stay, 153 participants developed (at least) one pressure ulcer, giving a pressure ulcer incidence of 2.3%. The univariate time to event analysis showed that all Braden subscales, except nutrition, were associated with the development of pressure ulcer. By multivariate analysis the scores for mobility and activity were independently predictive of the development of pressure ulcer(s) for all participants. Conclusion: (Im)mobility (the lack of ability to change and control body position) and (in)activity (the limited degree of physical activity) were the major risk factors assessed by Braden Scale for pressure ulcer development during the length of inpatient stay. Thus, the greatest efforts in managing pressure ulcer risk should be on mobility and activity, independently of the total Braden Scale score. (C) 2018 Tissue Viability Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据