IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v28y2019i23-24p4595-4605.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pressure injury risk assessment in intensive care units: Comparison of the reliability and predictive validity of the Braden and Jackson/Cubbin scales

Author

Listed:
  • Seyma Adibelli
  • Fatos Korkmaz

Abstract

Aims and objectives To compare the reliability and predictive validity of the Braden and Jackson/Cubbin PI risk assessment scales in intensive care unit patients. Background Risk assessment with a standardised tool is the usual intervention for preventing pressure injury. Therefore, tools used to assess pressure injury risk should be valid and reliable for the designated patient population. Design A prospective and cross‐sectional study adheres to the STARD guideline. Methods This study was conducted between November 2017–April 2018 in the intensive care units of a tertiary level university hospital in Turkey. The study sample consisted of 176 patients admitted to three intensive care units. Risk assessment was performed once daily with the Braden scale, followed immediately with the Jackson/Cubbin scale. Risk assessment was terminated on the day of pressure injury development or upon patient discharge from the intensive care unit. Each patient's final risk assessment was considered in the data analysis. Results The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the Jackson/Cubbin and Braden scales was .78 and .85, respectively. The predictive validity of the Jackson/Cubbin scale was confirmed by a sensitivity of .87, specificity of .84, positive predictive value of .47 and negative predictive value of .97. These values for the Braden scale were .95, .75, .38 and .99, respectively. Conclusion Both the Jackson/Cubbin and Braden scales are reliable and valid scales for pressure injury risk assessment in intensive care unit patients. However, the predictive ability to determine patients at risk and not at risk for pressure injury was better for the Jackson/Cubbin scale than for the Braden scale. Relevance to clinical practice Both scales are reliable and valid scales for pressure injury risk assessment. Jackson/Cubbin scale's discriminative ability (between the patients at pressure injury risk and not at pressure injury risk) was better.

Suggested Citation

  • Seyma Adibelli & Fatos Korkmaz, 2019. "Pressure injury risk assessment in intensive care units: Comparison of the reliability and predictive validity of the Braden and Jackson/Cubbin scales," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(23-24), pages 4595-4605, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:23-24:p:4595-4605
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15054
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15054?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mariana F Cremasco & Fernanda Wenzel & Suely SV Zanei & Iveth Y Whitaker, 2013. "Pressure ulcers in the intensive care unit: the relationship between nursing workload, illness severity and pressure ulcer risk," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(15-16), pages 2183-2191, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fuman Cai & Xiaoqiong Jiang & Xiangqing Hou & Duolao Wang & Yu Wang & Haisong Deng & Hailei Guo & Haishuang Wang & Xiaomei Li, 2021. "Application of infrared thermography in the early warning of pressure injury: A prospective observational study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3-4), pages 559-571, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tove E Børsting & Christine R Tvedt & Ingrid J Skogestad & Tove I Granheim & Caryl L Gay & Anners Lerdal, 2018. "Prevalence of pressure ulcer and associated risk factors in middle‐ and older‐aged medical inpatients in Norway," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3-4), pages 535-543, February.
    2. Ahmad Tubaishat & Panos Papanikolaou & Denis Anthony & Laila Habiballah, 2018. "Pressure Ulcers Prevalence in the Acute Care Setting: A Systematic Review, 2000-2015," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 27(6), pages 643-659, July.
    3. Pedro Sardo & Cláudia Simões & José Alvarelhão & César Costa & Carlos J Simões & Jorge Figueira & João L Simões & Francisco Amado & António Amaro & Elsa Melo, 2015. "Pressure ulcer risk assessment: retrospective analysis of Braden Scale scores in Portuguese hospitalised adult patients," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(21-22), pages 3165-3176, November.
    4. Dana Tschannen & Christine Anderson, 2020. "The pressure injury predictive model: A framework for hospital‐acquired pressure injuries," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7-8), pages 1398-1421, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:28:y:2019:i:23-24:p:4595-4605. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.