A clinimetric analysis of the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool: PURPOSE-T

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (20) ◽  
pp. S4-S8
Author(s):  
Matthew Wynn ◽  
Samantha Holloway

The assessment of patients' risk for developing pressure ulcers is a routine and fundamental nursing process undertaken to prevent avoidable harm to patients in all care settings. Many risk assessment tools are currently used in clinical practice, however no individual tool is recommended by advisory bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence or the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. The evidence base on the value of structured risk assessment tools in reducing the incidence or severity of pressure ulcers is poor. This purpose of this article is to provide a clinimetric analysis of the recently developed Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE-T) and identify areas for future research to improve the utility of structured risk assessment in identifying patients at risk of developing pressure ulcers.

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 297-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Webster ◽  
K. Coleman ◽  
A. Mudge ◽  
L. Marquart ◽  
G. Gardner ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-96
Author(s):  
Jane Muthoni Njoroge ◽  
Priscillah Njeri Kabue ◽  
James Ochieng

Pressure ulcers are a common health problem in hospitalized patients, especially among patients with chronic illnesses and those with reduced mobility. The prevalence of pressure ulcers varies with health care settings and is highest in critically ill patients ranging between 15-20%. They affect the quality of life of patients and caregivers and have been associated with heavy financial burdens, extended hospital stays, higher morbidity and mortality. Inadequate prevention measures and lack of active management of pressure ulcers in early stages especially in high-risk patients result in recurrence and complicated pressure ulcers. In view of this, a descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in Murang’a County, Kenya in selected health facilities with the objective of determining the management of patients with pressure ulcers. The study population was composed of one hundred and twenty-four (124) nurses working in medical and surgical wards in selected health facilities. Semi-structured questionnaires, observational checklists and focused group discussions were used to collect data. The qualitative data from the focus group discussions and observational checklist were transcribed and a summary written. The relationship between nurse’s knowledge, nurse-oriented factors and institutional factors affecting management of pressure ulcers among nurses were examined using Pearson correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis. The median age of the respondents was 37 years with at least 112 (90.3%) having diploma level of education, and 63 (50.9%) were from the medical department. The majority of the nurses (93.6%) agreed pressure ulcers can be avoided, while 58.1% preferred pressure ulcer risk assessment tools compared to 27.5% who preferred clinical judgment in the management of pressure ulcers. The majority of nurses (87.5%) who had adequate knowledge on the management of pressure ulcers mentioned immobility and bedridden patients, stroke, spinal injury, dry skin, stool and urine incontinence as major contributors to pressure ulcers. Regarding pressure ulcer risk assessment, 62.9% of nurses assessed patients for pressure ulcers though they relied on clinical judgement as 93.9% indicated there was no risk assessment scale in the wards and 5.1% were not sure. On institutional factors 61.3% of the nurses indicated that health facilities were lacking pressure ulcer reducing devices and those that had pillows and a few ripple mattresses. Regarding guidelines in the management of pressure ulcers, 75.8% of nurses indicated they were not available in the hospital. The study found an association between age and knowledge increasing the odds of effective management age (AOR = 6.83, p = 0.001); experience (AOR = 4.08, p = 0.01), and education (AOR = 22.9, p = 0.000). The nurse-oriented factors increasing the odds of effective management of pressure ulcers include nurse’s positive attitude on prevention of pressure ulcers (AOR = 2.3, p = 0.040) and nurse use of pressure ulcer risk assessment tool (AOR = 4.3, p = 0.010). On institutional factors, nurses trained on management of pressure ulcers were 4.47 times likely to effectively manage patients with pressure ulcers. Nurses who lack in-service training about pressure ulcers were less likely to effectively manage patients with pressure ulcers (AOR = 0.11, p = 0.000).  The study concludes that the nurses had adequate knowledge in management of pressure ulcers, the nurses-oriented factors and institutional factors also influence the management of pressure ulcers


2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
L Geoghegan ◽  
J Super ◽  
S Onida ◽  
S Hettiaratchy ◽  
A Davies

Abstract Introduction The incidence of flap failure in lower extremity reconstruction is significantly higher in the lower extremity compared head, neck and breast reconstruction. The commonest cause of flap failure is venous thrombosis. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of VTE risk assessment tools in patients with open lower extremity fractures and to assess the ability of such tools to identify patients at risk of developing microvascular venous thrombosis following lower extremity free flap reconstruction. Method A single centre retrospective cohort study was conducted between August 2012-August 2019. All patients were risk assessed using the Department of Health (DoH), Modified Caprini and Padua VTE risk assessment tools. Result 58 patients were included, all were at high risk of DVT according to the DoH (mean score± SD, 3.7±0.93), Caprini (10.2±1.64) and Padua (5.4±0.86) risk assessment tools. All patients received thromboprophylaxis, the incidence of clinical deep venous thrombosis was 0%. Intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated moderate agreement between the Caprini and DoH (0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.84, p<0.001), the Caprini and Padua (0.52, 95% CI 0.19-0.72, p<0.001) and the DoH and Padua (0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.85, p<0.001). Microvascular venous thrombosis occurred in 6 patients, resulting in 2 amputations. There were no significant differences in scores between those with and without venous complications. Conclusion Current VTE risk assessment tools do not identify patients at risk of developing venous complications following lower extremity reconstruction. Further prospective studies are required to optimise risk prediction models and thromboprophylaxis use in this cohort. Take-home message Current VTE risk assessment tools do not identify patients at risk of developing microvascular venous thrombosis following lower limb reconstruction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document