van Rijswijk Lia, Beitz Janice M
Holy Family University, School of Nursing and Allied Health Professions, Philadelphia, PA; Clinical Editor, Ostomy Wound Management; email:
Ostomy Wound Manage. 2013 Nov;59(11):28-40.
Pressure ulcer (PU) prevention is a care imperative supported by substantive evidence, but translating that knowledge into clinical decision-making at the point of care remains challenging. The purpose of this study was to create a succinct, evidence-based algorithm for inclusion in an existing industry-sponsored, evidence-based wound care program that will: 1) help clinicians assess and document overall patient PU risk; 2) help clinicians assess and address modifiable PU risk factors; and 3) guide clinicians toward an evidence-based protocol of care for patients with impaired skin integrity. First, using a systematic literature review and the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT), a one-page algorithm containing 26 distinct decision points/steps was developed with study quality ratings for all publications identified. Second, based on the quality-of-evidence ratings, the strength of each recommendation was obtained for each decision point/ step. Lastly, face validation and subsequent instrument revision based on analytic input occurred. Twelve (12) wound care experts were asked to review each decision step and rate its appropriateness/relevance on a 4-point Likert scale, where 1 = not relevant/appropriate and 4 = very relevant and appropriate. Average scores and a content validity index (CVI) were calculated for the algorithm and each individual component. Two components, the use of high-quality foam and medical grade sheepskin for at-risk patients, had sufficient evidence to receive an A strength of recommendation. However, the latter had a very low CVI (0.18). One other step, frequency of assessment for current or recent history of limited mobility (B strength of recommendation), had a low CVI (0.7). The overall literature-based level of evidence was good, but overall evidence gaps remain. The overall mean score was 3.6 (SD 0.8) with a CVI of 0.89 (out of 1). Both scores indicate strong face validity. This is the first PU prevention algorithm based on systematic literature review and face validation. Future content and construct validation is needed to refine the algorithm.
压力性溃疡(PU)的预防是一项有充分证据支持的护理要务,但将这些知识转化为护理点的临床决策仍具有挑战性。本研究的目的是创建一个简洁的、基于证据的算法,纳入现有的由行业赞助的、基于证据的伤口护理项目,该算法将:1)帮助临床医生评估和记录患者整体PU风险;2)帮助临床医生评估和处理可改变的PU风险因素;3)指导临床医生为皮肤完整性受损患者制定基于证据的护理方案。首先,通过系统的文献综述和推荐分级系统(SORT),开发了一个包含26个不同决策点/步骤的单页算法,并对所有纳入研究的质量进行了评级。其次,根据证据质量评级,为每个决策点/步骤获得了每条推荐意见的强度。最后,进行了表面效度验证,并根据分析意见对工具进行了修订。12名伤口护理专家被要求审查每个决策步骤,并在4点李克特量表上对其适用性/相关性进行评分,其中1 = 不相关/不适用,4 = 非常相关且适用。计算了该算法及每个单独组件的平均得分和内容效度指数(CVI)。两个组件,即对高危患者使用高质量泡沫和医用级羊皮,有充分证据支持,推荐强度为A级患者使用高质量泡沫和医用级羊皮,有充分证据支持,推荐强度为A级。然而,后者的CVI非常低(0.18)。另一个步骤,即对当前或近期有限活动能力病史的评估频率(推荐强度为B级),CVI较低(0.7)。基于文献的总体证据水平良好,但总体证据差距仍然存在。总体平均得分为3.6(标准差0.