Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Risk Assessment Tool for Pressure Ulcer Development in Indian Surgical Wards

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aims of this paper were to compare the predictive validity of three pressure ulcer (PU) risk scales—the Norton scale, the Braden scale, and the Waterlow scale—and to choose the most appropriate calculator for predicting PU risk in surgical wards of India. This is an observational prospective cohort study in a tertiary educational hospital in New Delhi among 100 surgical ward patients from April to July 2011. The main outcomes measured included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PVP) and negative predictive value (PVN), and the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the three PU risk assessment scales. Based on the cutoff points found most appropriate in this study, the sensitivity, specificity, PVP, and PVN were as follows: the Norton scale (cutoff, 16) had the values of 95.6, 93.5, 44.8, and 98.6, respectively; the Braden scale (cutoff, 17) had values of 100, 89.6, 42.5, and 100, respectively; and the Waterlow scale (cutoff, 11) had 91.3, 84.4, 38.8, and 97, respectively. According to the ROC curve, the Norton scale is the most appropriate tool. Factors such as physical condition, activity, mobility, body mass index (BMI), nutrition, friction, and shear are extremely significant in determining risk of PU development (p < 0.0001). The Norton scale is most effective in predicting PU risk in Indian surgical wards. BMI, mobility, activity, nutrition, friction, and shear are the most significant factors in Indian surgical ward settings with necessity for future comparison with established scales.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bolton L (2007) Which pressure ulcer risk assessment scales are valid for use in the clinical setting? J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 34(4):368–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cuddigan J, Ayello EA, Sussman C (2001) Pressure ulcers in America: prevalence, incidence, and implications for the future. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, Reston, VA

    Google Scholar 

  3. Thein HH, Gomes T, Krahn MD, Wodchis WP (2010) Health status utilities and the impact of pressure ulcers in long-term care residents in Ontario. Qual Life Res 19(1):81–89

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Spilsbury K, Nelson A, Cullum N, Iglesias C, Nixon J, Mason S (2007) Pressure ulcers and their treatment and effects on quality of life: hospital inpatient perspectives. J Adv Nurs 57(5):494–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Davis K (1994) Pressure sores: aetiology, risk factors and assessment scales. Br J Nurs 3:258–261

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kring DL (2007) Reliability and validity of the Braden Scale for predicting pressure ulcer risk. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 34(4):399–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bergstrom N, Braden B, Laguzza A, Holman V (1987) The Braden scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Nurs Res 36:205–210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gelfand JM et al (2003) In: Freedberg IM et al (eds) Fitzpatrick’s dermatology in general medicine. McGraw-Hill Professional, New York, p 1256

    Google Scholar 

  9. The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (1989) Pressure ulcers prevalence, cost and risk assessment: consensus development conference statement. Decubitus 2(2):24–28

    Google Scholar 

  10. Alterescu V (1989) The financial costs of inpatient pressure ulcers to an acute care facility. Decubitus 2(3):14–23

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gunningberg L, Lindholm C, Carlsson M, Sjoden P (1999) Implementation of risk assessment and classification of pressure ulcers as quality indicators for patients with hip fractures. J Clin Nurs 8(4):396–406

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pang SM, Wong TK (1998) Predicting pressure sore risk with the Norton, Braden and Waterloo scales in a Hong Kong rehabilitation hospital. Nurs Res 47(3):147–153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Anthony D, Parboteeah S, Saleh M, Papanikolaou P (2008) Norton, Waterlow and Braden scores: a review of the literature and a comparison between the scores and clinical judgement. J Clin Nurs 17(5):646–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Papanikolaou P, Lyne P, Anthony D (2007) Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcers: a methodological review. Int J Nurs Stud 44(2):285–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. TorraiBou JE, Garca’-Ferna’ndez FP, Pancorbo-Hidalgo PL, Furtado K (2008) Risk assessment scales for predicting the risk of developing pressure ulcers. In: Romanelli M (ed) Science and practice of pressure ulcer management. Springer, London, pp 43–57

    Google Scholar 

  16. Norton D, McLaren R, Exton-Smith AN (1975) An investigation of geriatric nursing problems in hospitals. London 7 National Corporation for the Care of Old people

  17. Waterloo J (1985) Pressure sores: a risk assessment card. Nurs Times 81(48):49–55

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bridel J (1993) Assessing the risk of pressure sores. Nurs Stand 7(25):32–35

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. MacDonald K (1995) The reliability of pressure sore risk assessment tools. Prof Nurse 11(3):169–172

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wasson JH, Sox HC, Neff RK, Goldman L (1985) Clinical prediction rules. Applications and methodological standards. N Engl J Med 13(13):793–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith DM, Winsemius DK, Besdine RW (1991) Pressure sores in the elderly: can this outcome be improved? J Gen Intern Med 6(1):81–93

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bours GJ, Halfens RJ, Lubbers M, Haalboom JR (1999) The development of a national registration form to measure the prevalence of pressure ulcers in the Netherlands. Ostomy Wound Manage 45(28–33):36–38

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kelly J (2005) Inter-rater reliability and Waterlow’s pressure ulcer risk assessment tool. Nurs Stand 19(32):86–87, 90–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lindgren M, Unosson M, Fredrikson M, Ek AC (2004) Immobility—a major risk factor for development of pressure ulcers among adult hospitalized patients: a prospective study. Scand J Caring Sci 18(1):57–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lewicki LJ, Mion L, Splane KG, Samstag D, Secic M (1997) Patient risk factors for pressure ulcer during cardiac surgery. AORN J 65(5):933–942

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Defloor T (1999) The risk of pressure sores: a conceptual scheme. J ClinNurs 8:206–216

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Papantonio CT, Wallop JM, Kolodner KB (1994) Sacral ulcers following cardiac surgery: incidence and risks. Adv Wound Care 7(2):24–36

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Feuchtinger J, Halfens RJ, Dassen T (2005) Pressure ulcer risk factors in cardiac surgery: a review of the research literature. Heart Lung 34(6):375–385

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Olson B, Langemo D, Burd C, Hanson D, Hunter S, Cathcart-Silberberg T (1996) Pressure ulcer incidence in an acute care setting. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 23(1):15–22

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi, 110001, India

    Sushma Kumari, Deborshi Sharma, Anshika Rana, Romesh Lal & Ajay Kumar

  2. Department of Surgery, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, 110001, India

    Reetesh Pathak & U C Biswal

  3. Quarter 17, Block III, Type V, Lodhi Road Complex, New Delhi, 110003, India

    Deborshi Sharma

Authors
  1. Sushma Kumari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deborshi Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anshika Rana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Reetesh Pathak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Romesh Lal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ajay Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. U C Biswal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborshi Sharma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kumari, S., Sharma, D., Rana, A. et al. Risk Assessment Tool for Pressure Ulcer Development in Indian Surgical Wards. Indian J Surg 77, 206–212 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-012-0779-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-012-0779-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation