3.8 Article

Validation of EMINA and EVARUCI scales for assessing the risk of developing pressure ulcers in critical patients

期刊

ENFERMERIA INTENSIVA
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 15-23

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.enfi.2014.10.003

关键词

Pressure ulcers; Intensive care; Evaluation scales; Validity of test

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To contribute to the validation of the EMINA and EVAUCI scales for assessing the risk of pressure ulcers in the critical patient and compare their predictive capacity in this same context. Method: Prospective study from December 2012 until June 2013. Setting: Polyvalent intensive care unit of 14 beds in a reference hospital for two sanitary areas. Patients: patients of 18 years of age or older and without pressure ulcers were included. They were followed until development of a pressure ulcer of grade I or greater, medical discharge, death or 30 days. Main variables: presence of ulcers, daily score of the risk of developing pressure ulcers through EMINA and EVARUCI evaluation. The validity of both scales was calculated using sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value. The level of significance was P<0.05. Results: A total of 189 patients were evaluated. 67.2% were male with a mean age of 59.4 (DE: 16,8) years old, 53 (28%) developed pressure ulcers, being the incidence rate of 41 ulcers per 1000 admission days. The mean day of diagnosis was 7.7 days (DE: 4,4) and the most frequent area was the sacrum. The sensitivity and specificity for the mean of observations was 94.34 (IC95% 87.17-100) and 33.33 (IC95% 25.01-41.66) for the EMINA scale for a risk > 10 and 92.45 (IC95% 84.40-100) and 42.96 (IC95% 34.24-51.68) for the EVARUCI scale for a risk of > 11. Conclusions: No differences were found in predictive capacity of both scales. For sensitivities > 90%the scales show to be insufficiently specific in the pressure ulcer risk detection in critical patients. (C) 2014 Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. and SEEIUC. 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

3.8
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