Suppr超能文献

欧洲压疮咨询小组分类系统的可靠性。

Reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system.

作者信息

Defloor Tom, Schoonhoven Lisette, Katrien Vanderwee, Weststrate Jan, Myny Dries

机构信息

Nursing Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.

出版信息

J Adv Nurs. 2006 Apr;54(2):189-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03801.x.

Abstract

AIM

This paper reports a study examining the interrater and intrarater reliability of classifying pressure ulcers according to the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system when using photographs of pressure ulcers and incontinence lesions.

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcer classification is an essential tool for assessing ulcers and their severity and determining which preventive or therapeutic action is needed. Many classification systems are described in the literature. There are only a limited number of studies that evaluate the interrater reliability of pressure ulcer grading scales. The intrarater reliability is seldom studied.

METHODS

The study consisted of two phases. In the first phase 56 photographs, together with a random selection of nine photographs from the same set, were presented to 473 nurses. In the second phase, the 56 photographs were presented twice to 86 other nurses with an interval of one month and in a different order. All the nurses were familiar with the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification. They did not receive any additional training on classification, and were asked to classify the lesions as normal skin, blanchable erythema, pressure ulcers (four grades, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification) or incontinence lesions.

RESULTS

In the first phase, the multirater-Kappa for the 473 participating nurses was 0.37 (P < 0.001). Non-blanchable erythema was often confused with blanchable erythema and incontinence lesions. Also incontinence lesions were frequently not correctly classified. The intrarater agreement was low (kappa = 0.38). In the second phase, the interrater agreement was not significantly different in both sessions. The intrarater agreement was 0.52.

CONCLUSION

Both the interrater and intrarater reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification of lesion photographs by nurses was very low. Differentiation between pressure ulcers and incontinence lesions seems to be difficult.

摘要

目的

本文报告一项研究,该研究在使用压疮和失禁性损伤的照片时,根据欧洲压疮咨询小组分类系统检验对压疮进行分类的评分者间信度和评分者内信度。

背景

压疮分类是评估溃疡及其严重程度以及确定需要采取何种预防或治疗措施的重要工具。文献中描述了许多分类系统。评估压疮分级量表评分者间信度的研究数量有限。评分者内信度很少被研究。

方法

该研究包括两个阶段。在第一阶段,向473名护士展示了56张照片,以及从同一组中随机选择的9张照片。在第二阶段,将这56张照片以不同顺序分两次展示给另外86名护士,间隔为一个月。所有护士都熟悉欧洲压疮咨询小组的分类。他们没有接受任何关于分类的额外培训,并被要求将损伤分类为正常皮肤、可褪色红斑、压疮(四个等级,欧洲压疮咨询小组分类)或失禁性损伤。

结果

在第一阶段,473名参与护士的多评分者Kappa值为0.37(P<0.001)。不可褪色红斑常与可褪色红斑和失禁性损伤混淆。此外,失禁性损伤也经常未被正确分类。评分者内一致性较低(kappa=0.38)。在第二阶段,两次评估中评分者间一致性无显著差异。评分者内一致性为0.52。

结论

护士根据欧洲压疮咨询小组对损伤照片进行分类的评分者间信度和评分者内信度都非常低。压疮和失禁性损伤之间的区分似乎很困难。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验