Author
Abstract
Aims and objectives. The aim of this study was to examine interrater reliability and agreement of the diagnosis of moisture lesions as defined by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Background. Differentiation between superficial pressure ulcers and moisture‐related skin damages is difficult. To enhance the precision of the identification of moisture lesions, the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel provided wound‐ and patient‐related characteristics. Empirical evidence regarding interrater reliability and agreement among nurses for the detection of moisture‐related skin damages in clinical practice is lacking. Design. Observational. Methods. Home care clients (n = 339) were independently assessed twice by trained nurses. A head to toe skin inspection was conducted. Results. For the diagnosis of moisture lesion (yes/no), nurses exactly agreed in 95% of all assessed clients. Interrater reliability was intraclass correlation coefficient (1,1) = 0·67 (95% CI 0·61–0·73). Conclusions. Nurses were able to differentiate between home care clients with and without moisture lesions but assessment results contained a high degree of measurement error. It seems that the descriptions for the identification of moisture lesions provided by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel do support the diagnostic process but reliability must be enhanced. Relevance to clinical practice. Because of low interrater reliability, it is questionable whether the diagnosis of moisture lesions in clinical practice is valid. Measurement error is too high to make adequate inferences for individuals. Definitions and descriptions provided by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, provisions of a single training and images are not sufficient to achieve acceptable interrater reliability in clinical practice.
Suggested Citation
Jan Kottner & Ruud Halfens, 2010.
"Moisture lesions: interrater agreement and reliability,"
Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5‐6), pages 716-720, March.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:5-6:p:716-720
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03109.x
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:5-6:p:716-720. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.