Skip to main content
Log in

Cochrane Pflegeforum

Standardisiertes Dekubitus-Risikoassessments versus klinische Beurteilung — Einfluss auf die Inzidenz von Dekubitus im Krankenhaus

Standardized pressure ulcer risk assessment tools versus clinical judgement — Impact on the incidence of pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients

  • PFLEGE & WISSENSCHAFT
  • Published:
ProCare Aims and scope

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Quellen

  1. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel EPUAPaPPPIA. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Quick Reference Guide 2014 [Available from: https://www.epuap.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/german_quick-reference-guide.pdf.

  2. Mervis JS, Phillips TJ. Pressure ulcers: Pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors, and presentation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81(4):881–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lovegrove J, Ven S, Miles SJ, Fulbrook P. Comparison of pressure injury risk assessment outcomes using a structured assessment tool versus clinical judgement: A systematic review. J Clin Nurs. 2021;01:01.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Moore ZE, Patton D. Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1:CD006471.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. European-Pressure-Ulcer-Advisory-Panel. Prävention und Behandlung von Dekubitus 2019 [Available from: www.epuap.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/qrg-2020-german.pdf.

  6. (DNQP) DNfQidP. Expertenstandard Dekubitusprophylaxe in der Pflege 2. Aktualisierung 2017 [Available from: https://www.dnqp.de/fileadmin/HSOS/Homepages/DNQP/Dateien/Expertenstandards/Dekubitusprophylaxe_in_der_Pflege/Dekubitus_2Akt_Auszug.pdf.

  7. Berlowitz DS, K. Berman, R. Cochran, A.. Prevention of pressure-induced skin and soft tissue injury 2022 [Available from: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/prevention-of-pressure-induced-skin-and-soft-tissue-injury.

  8. Stansby G, Avital L, Jones K, Marsden G. Prevention and management of pressure ulcers in primary and secondary care: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ: British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition). 2014;348:g2592–g.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fangmeyer M, Ledinger D, Klerings I. Standardisiertes Dekubitus-Assessment versus klinische Beurteilung. Rapid Review. Evidenzbasiertes Informationszentrum für Pflegende; November 2022. DOI:10.48341/wqzm-fs69 2022 [Available from: https://ebninfo.at/Dekubitus_Assessment_vs_klinische_Beurteilung.

  10. Webster J, Coleman K, Mudge A, Marquart L, Gardner G, Stankiewicz M, et al. Pressure ulcers: effectiveness of risk-assessment tools. A randomised controlled trial (the ULCER trial). BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(4):297–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Saleh M, Anthony D, Parboteeah S. The impact of pressure ulcer risk assessment on patient outcomes among hospitalised patients. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18(13):1923–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bartholomeyczik S, Hunstein D. PositionsPapier. Standardisierte Assessmentinstrumente — Möglichkeiten und Grenzen 2006 [Available from: https://www.epa-cc.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/bartho_hunstein_assessmentinstr._2006pdf.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Camilla Neubauer BSc, MA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neubauer, C. Standardisiertes Dekubitus-Risikoassessments versus klinische Beurteilung — Einfluss auf die Inzidenz von Dekubitus im Krankenhaus. ProCare 28, 50–51 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00735-023-1678-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00735-023-1678-5

Navigation