Using Braden and Waterlow Scales to Predict Pressure Ulcer: A Comparative Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22100/jkh.v5i4.161Keywords:
Risk, Sensitivity, Specificity, Pressure ulcer, Braden scale, Waterlow scale.Abstract
Introduction: This study aims at determining and comparing Braden and Waterlow predictive tools as well as determining the cut off point of these scales.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional study which was carried out on 1864 patients admitted to Imam Hossein Hospital in Shahroud. The data collection instruments included Braden and Waterlow risk–assessment scales and a skin assessment tool. The data were collected through interviews and observation and were analyzed through t-test and ROC curve.
Results: Out of 1864 participants in the study, 72 patients developed pressure ulcer. The mean scores obtained through the pressure ulcer assessment in patients with pressure ulcers, on the basis of Braden scale was 13.8 ± 3.6 and in patients without the pressure ulcers was 20.2 ± 3.5. The mean scores based on Waterlow scale in patients with pressure ulcers was 15.6±5.2 and in patients without pressure ulcers it was 10 ± 4.1. The results of t-tests showed significant differences between the mean scores of the two groups based on the two scales (P<0.001). The Braden scale had a sensitivity of 92% and specificity 74% at the cut off point of 18.5 and the Waterlow scale had a sensitivity of 69% and specificity 78% at the cut off point of 12.5.
Conclusion: The Braden scale had higher sensitivity and specificity compared to Waterlow scale; therefore, it is one of the appropriate instruments for prediction of patients at risk of developing pressure ulcers.
References
Lisett S, Haalboom JR, Bousema JRE, Algra A , Grypdonck MH, Buskens E. Prospective Cohort study of routine use of risk assessment scales for prediction of pressure ulcers. BMJ 2002;325(7368):779-785.
Ghanee R, Gavami H. Pressure ulcer in intensive care unite. Bimonthly Journal of Urmia Nursing & Midwifery Faculty 2010;8(2):90-103.
Lyder CH. Pressure ulcer prevention and management. Annual Review Nursing Research 2002;20(2):35-61.
Baranoski S. pressure ulcers: A renewed awareness. Nursing 2006;36(8):36-41.
Graves N, Birrell F, Whitby M. Effect of pressure ulcers on length of hospital stay. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26(3):293-7.
Pancorbo- Hidalgo PL, Garcia-Fernandez FP, Lopez-Medina IM, Alvarez-Nieto C. Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs 2006;54(1):94-110.
Lindgren M, Unosson M, Krantz AM, Christina A. A risk assessment scale for the prediction of pressure sore development: reliability and validity. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2002;38(2):190-199.
Kottner J, Dassen T. Pressure ulcers risk assessment in critical care: interrater reliability and validity studies of Braden and Waterlow scales and subjective rating in two intensive care units. Int J Nurs Stud 2010;47(6):671-677.
Hazel M. A review of the lowthian pressure sore prediction score for risk assessment in the orthopedic setting. Journal of Orthopedic Nursing 2004;8(3):142-150.
Jalali R, Rezaie M. predicting pressure ulcer risk: Comparing the predictive validity of 4 scales. Adv Skin Wound Care 2005;18(2):92-7.
Tolmie EP, Smith LN. A study of the prevention and management of pressure sores. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing 2002;6(3-4):111-120.
Gould D, Goldstone L, Kelly D, Gammon J. Examining the validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: a replication study. Int J Nurs Stud 2004;41(3):331-9.
Breden BJ, Bergstrom N. Predictive validity of the Braden scale for pressure sore risk in a nursing home population. Res Nurs Health 1994;17(6):459-470.
Uzun O, Aylaz R, Karadg E. Prospective study reducing pressure ulcers in intensive care units at a Turkish medical center. J Wound Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society 2009;36(4):404-411.
Agency for health care policy and research(US). Treatment of pressure ulcers. Clinical Practice guideline number 15. AHCPR publication;1994.
Madar-Shahian F. A contrastive study of Braden and Norton scales for predicting pressure ulcer risk in the skin. J Sbzevar University of Medical Sciences (Asrar) 1997;6(3):37-43.[Persian].
Tannen A, Balzer K, Kottner J, Dassen T, Halfens R, Mertens E. Diagnostic accuracy of two pressure ulcer risk scales and a generic nursing assessment tool: A psychometric comparison. J Clin Nurs 2010;19(11-12):1510-8.
Halfens RIG, Achterberg TVan, Bal RM. Validity and reliability of the Braden scale and the influence of other risk factors: a multi-center prospective study. Int J Nurs Stud 2000:37(4):313-319.
Souza DM, Santos VL, Iri HK, Sadasue Oguri MY. Predictive validity of the Braden scale for pressure ulcer risk in elderly residents of long-term care facilities. Geriatr Nurs 2010;31(2):95-104.
Papanikolaou P, Lyne PL, Anthony D. Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcers: A methodological review. Int J Nurs Stud 2007;44:285-296.
Terekeci H, Kucukardali Y, Top C, Onem Y, Celik S, Oktenli C. Risk assessment study of the pressure ulcers in intensive care unit patients. Eur J Intern Med. 2009;20(4):394-7.
Pan Corbo-Hidalgo PL, Garci-Fernandez FP, Lopez-Medina IM, Alvarez-Nieto C. Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic revie. JAN 2005;54(1):94-110.
Serpa LF, de Gouveia Santos VL, Gomboski G, Rosado SM. Predictive validity of Waterlow Scale for pressure ulcer development risk in hospitalized patients. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2009;36(6):640-6.
Shahin ESM, Dassen T, Halfens RJG. Incidence, prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers in intensive care patients : A longitudinal study. Int J Nurs Stud 2009;46:413-421.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
