A COMPARISON OF PATIENT RISK FOR PRESSURE ULCER DEVELOPMENT WITH NURSING USE OF PREVENTIVE INTERVENTIONS

Objective: (1) Determine if the Braden scale or Norton scale predicted the same patients to be at risk for pressure ulcer development as were receiving preventive nursing interventions. (2) Identify the items on the Braden and Norton risk assessment scales that the nurses used intuitively to determine a patient's need for a preventive intervention. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Six hundred-bed, state-supported, long-term care facility. Patients: War veterans who were 82% male and 97% caucasian, mean age 73. Measurements: (1) Patients were categorized as at-risk or not-at-risk by the Norton and Braden scales. (2) The presence of a preventive nursing intervention was noted. Agreement in assignment of at-risk status among the two assessments and presence of a preventive intervention was analyzed using Cohen's Kappa. (3) The staff nurses' use of preventive interventions was modeled using stepwise logistic regression. The items from the Braden and Norton risk assessment scales were used as independent variables with staff nurse implementation of a preventive intervention as the dependant variable. Results: Nurse preventive interventions were found on 45% of patients. The Norton scale identified 38% and the Braden scale identified 27% of patients as at-risk. Agreement among the three methods was 0.53. Agreement between the Braden and Norton scales was 0.73. Agreement between use of a preventive intervention and a classification as at-risk by the Braden or Norton scale was 0.41 and 0.43, respectively. Stepwise logistic regression revealed that low Braden mobility scores (Odds Ratio: 2.74) and low Braden friction/shear scores (Odds Ratio: 3.29) were associated with an increased likelihood of a patient receiving a preventive nursing intervention. Conclusions: The overall level of agreement among the two scales predicting risk and the presence of a preventive intervention was not high. Agreement, however, between the two risk assessment scales was close. The staff nurses apparently relied on a patients' mobility, their exposure to friction/shear, and additional unidentified factors to guide implementation of a preventive intervention. Further study is needed to define the cost, efficacy, and related cost effectiveness of routine pressure ulcer risk assessment.