两种量表评分在老年脑血管意外患者压力性损伤风险评估中的效果比较

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-9400.2021.06.015

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (0)
Related Citation (9)

Download: PDF (1376 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective: To compare the effect of Braden scale and Waterlow scale in the risk assessment of stress injury in elderly patients with cerebrovascular accident. Methods: Totally 244 elderly inpatients with cerebrovascular accident were selected and evaluated by Braden scale and Waterlow scale. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, Youden index, AUC (area under the ROC curve) of each scale were calculated. Results: The best critical value of Braden scale was 17 points, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Braden scale was 93.33%, 62.00%, 13.86% and 99.30%, respectively. In contrast, the best critical value of Waterlow scale was 15 points, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Waterlow scale was 93.33%, 81.67%, 25.00% and 99.47%, respectively. AUC of Waterlow scale (0.94) was significantly higher than that of Braden scale (0.87) (P<0.05). Conclusion: The application of Waterlow scale in stress injury risk assessment of elderly patients with cerebrovascular accident is more valuable than Braden scale.

Key words： stress injury Braden scale Waterlow scale elderly patient cerebrovascular accident

Received: 04 January 2021

	Service
	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	CHEN Xiufang
	ZHOU Aimei
	LU Sujuan
	YANG Suili
	HONG Xianchai

URL:

https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.2095-9400.2021.06.015 OR https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/EN/Y2021/V51/I6/502

参考文献：
[1] 陈丽娟, 孙林利, 刘丽红, 等. 2019版《压疮/压力性损伤的预防和治疗: 临床实践指南》解读[J]. 护理学杂志, 2020, 35(13): 41-43, 51.
[2] 曲超然, 王青, 韩琳, 等. 机器学习算法在压力性损伤管理中的应用进展[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2021, 56(2): 212-217.
[3] ANRYS C, VAN TIGGELEN H, VERHAEGHE S, et al. Independent risk factors for pressure ulcer development in a high-risk nursing home population receiving evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention: Results from a study in 26 nursing homes in Belgium[J]. Int Wound J, 2019, 16(2): 325-333.
[4] Sardo P, Simões C, Alvarelhão J, et al. Pressure ulcer risk assessment: Retrospective analysis of Braden Scale scores in Portuguese hospitalized adult patients[J]. J Clin Nurs, 2015, 24(21-22): 3165-3176.
[5] 张宁, 李晓刚, 商之涵, 等. 改良早期预警评分联合Braden评分对ICU老年患者压力性损伤的预测研究[J]. 中华急危重症护理杂志, 2020, 1(5): 394-397.
[6] WATERLOW J. Pressure sores: A risk assessment card[J]. Nurs Times, 1985, 81(48): 49-55.
[7] 柳艳涛, 石莉莉, 李婷婷. Waterlow量表在重症脑出血术后昏迷患者压力性损伤风险评估中的应用[J]. 齐鲁护理杂志, 2021, 27(4): 77-79.
[8] 李晓艳, 赵小利, 韩娟, 等. Waterlow量表对重症患者压疮的预测价值及诊断界值分析[J]. 护理学报, 2015, 22(17): 59-61.
[9] 邓里娜, 吴波. 《中国脑出血诊治指南2019》更新要点及解读[J]. 心脑血管病防治, 2021, 21(1): 13-17, 34.
[10] 彭斌, 吴波. 中国急性缺血性脑卒中诊治指南2018[J]. 中华神经科杂志, 2018, 51(9): 666-682.
[11] 霍孝蓉, 沈媛, 吴玲, 等. 泛太平洋地区压力性损伤的防治临床实践指南[M]. 南京: 东南大学出版社, 2014.
[12] 黄灿, 马玉霞, 蒋梦瑶, 等. 压力性损伤风险评估工具的研究进展[J]. 上海护理, 2021, 21(1): 50-53.
[13] BALZER K, POHL C, DASSEN T, et al. The Norton, Waterlow, Braden, and Care Dependency Scales: comparing their validity when identifying patients’ pressure sore risk[J]. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs, 2007, 34(4): 389-398.
[14] 陈佩琴, 温新颜, 陈春莲. 老年住院患者压力性损伤预防护理证据的文献汇总分析[J]. 护理实践与研究, 2021, 18(6): 823-827.
[15] 徐永能, 卢少萍, 黄巧, 等. 老年卧床患者出院后压力性损伤的预防及管理[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2017, 52(S1): 40-44.
[16] VALIANI V, CHEN Z, LIPORI G, et al. Prognostic value of Braden activity subscale for mobility status in hospitalized older adults[J]. J Hosp Med, 2017, 12(6): 396-401