• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

新型压疮风险评估工具——压疮风险初级或次级评估工具(PURPOSE T)的临床评估。

Clinical evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE T).

机构信息

Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.

出版信息

J Adv Nurs. 2018 Feb;74(2):407-424. doi: 10.1111/jan.13444. Epub 2017 Sep 28.

DOI:10.1111/jan.13444
PMID:28833356
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5846883/
Abstract

AIM

To test the psychometric properties and clinical usability of a new Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instrument including inter-rater and test-retest reliability, convergent validity and data completeness.

BACKGROUND

Methodological and practical limitations associated with traditional Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments, prompted a programme to work to develop a new instrument, as part of the National Institute for Health Research funded, Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (RP-PG-0407-10056).

DESIGN

Observational field test.

METHOD

For this clinical evaluation 230 patients were purposefully sampled across four broad levels of pressure ulcer risk with representation from four secondary care and four community NHS Trusts in England. Blinded and simultaneous paired (ward/community nurse and expert nurse) PURPOSE-T assessments were undertaken. Follow-up retest was undertaken by the expert nurse. Field notes of PURPOSE-T use were collected. Data were collected October 2012-January 2013.

RESULTS

The clinical evaluation demonstrated "very good" (kappa) inter-rater and test-retest agreement for PURPOSE-T assessment decision overall. The percentage agreement for "problem/no problem" was over 75% for the main risk factors. Convergent validity demonstrated moderate to high associations with other measures of similar constructs.

CONCLUSION

The PURPOSE-T evaluation facilitated the initial validation and clinical usability of the instrument and demonstrated that PURPOSE-T is suitable of use in clinical practice. Further study is needed to evaluate the impact of using the instrument on care processes and outcomes.

摘要

目的

测试一种新的压疮风险评估工具的心理测量学特性和临床可用性,包括评分者间信度、重测信度、聚合效度和数据完整性。

背景

传统压疮风险评估工具存在方法学和实际限制,因此启动了一项计划,旨在开发一种新工具,作为国家健康研究所资助的压疮研究计划(RP-PG-0407-10056)的一部分。

设计

观察性现场测试。

方法

为了进行这项临床评估,在英格兰的四个二级保健和四个社区国民保健信托基金会中,有目的抽样了 230 名处于不同压疮风险级别的患者,具有代表性。进行了盲法和同时的配对(病房/社区护士和专家护士)PURPOSE-T 评估。由专家护士进行随访复测。收集了 PURPOSE-T 使用的现场记录。数据收集于 2012 年 10 月至 2013 年 1 月。

结果

临床评估表明,PURPOSE-T 评估决策的评分者间和重测信度总体上为“非常好”(kappa)。主要风险因素的“有问题/无问题”的百分比一致性超过 75%。聚合效度表明与其他类似结构的测量方法有中度至高度关联。

结论

PURPOSE-T 评估促进了该工具的初步验证和临床可用性,并表明 PURPOSE-T 适合在临床实践中使用。需要进一步研究评估使用该工具对护理过程和结果的影响。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2ca6/5846883/6042381b61b0/JAN-74-407-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2ca6/5846883/6042381b61b0/JAN-74-407-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2ca6/5846883/6042381b61b0/JAN-74-407-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Clinical evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE T).新型压疮风险评估工具——压疮风险初级或次级评估工具(PURPOSE T)的临床评估。
J Adv Nurs. 2018 Feb;74(2):407-424. doi: 10.1111/jan.13444. Epub 2017 Sep 28.
2
PURPOSE T in Swedish hospital wards and nursing homes: A psychometric evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument.目的:瑞典医院病房和护理院的 T 评分:一种新的压疮风险评估工具的心理测量学评估。
J Clin Nurs. 2020 Nov;29(21-22):4066-4075. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15433. Epub 2020 Aug 19.
3
Using cognitive pre-testing methods in the development of a new evidenced-based pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument.在开发一种新的基于证据的压疮风险评估工具时使用认知预测试方法。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Nov 16;16(1):158. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0257-5.
4
The Chinese Mandarin COMHON Index and Braden Scale to assess pressure injury risk in intensive care: An inter-rater reliability and convergent validity study.用于评估重症监护中压力性损伤风险的中文普通话COMHON指数和Braden量表:一项评分者间信度和收敛效度研究。
Aust Crit Care. 2025 Jan;38(1):101093. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2024.05.015. Epub 2024 Aug 10.
5
Pressure injury risk assessment in intensive care: comparison of inter-rater reliability of the COMHON (Conscious level, Mobility, Haemodynamics, Oxygenation, Nutrition) Index with three scales.重症监护中的压力性损伤风险评估:COMHON(意识水平、活动能力、血流动力学、氧合、营养)指数与三种量表的评分者间信度比较。
J Adv Nurs. 2016 Mar;72(3):680-92. doi: 10.1111/jan.12825. Epub 2015 Oct 14.
6
7
Pressure ulcer risk assessment-registered nurses´ experiences of using PURPOSE T: A focus group study.压力性溃疡风险评估-注册护士使用 PURPOSE T 的体验:一项焦点小组研究。
J Clin Nurs. 2022 Jan;31(1-2):231-239. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15901. Epub 2021 Jun 9.
8
Reliability of pressure ulcer classification and diagnosis.
J Adv Nurs. 2005 Jun;50(6):613-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03439.x.
9
A patient-reported pressure ulcer health-related quality of life instrument for use in prevention trials (PU-QOL-P): psychometric evaluation.用于预防试验的患者报告的压疮健康相关生活质量工具(PU-QOL-P):心理测量学评估。
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018 Dec 10;16(1):227. doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-1049-x.
10
Pressure ulcer prevention: development and psychometric validation of a knowledge assessment instrument.压力性溃疡预防:知识评估工具的开发和心理测量学验证。
Int J Nurs Stud. 2010 Apr;47(4):399-410. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.08.010. Epub 2009 Sep 24.

引用本文的文献

1
The impact of a risk assessment tool on hospital pressure injury prevalence and prevention: a quantitative pre-post evaluation.一种风险评估工具对医院压力性损伤发生率及预防的影响:一项前后对照定量评估。
Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 2025 May 1;8:100342. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnsa.2025.100342. eCollection 2025 Jun.
2
Revealing the therapeutic properties of gut microbiota: transforming cancer immunotherapy from basic to clinical approaches.揭示肠道微生物群的治疗特性:将癌症免疫疗法从基础研究转化为临床应用。
Med Oncol. 2024 Jun 14;41(7):175. doi: 10.1007/s12032-024-02416-3.
3
Feasibility of PURPOSE T in clinical practice and patient participation-A mixed-method study.

本文引用的文献

1
Using cognitive pre-testing methods in the development of a new evidenced-based pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument.在开发一种新的基于证据的压疮风险评估工具时使用认知预测试方法。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Nov 16;16(1):158. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0257-5.
2
Pressure ulcer and wounds reporting in NHS hospitals in England part 1: Audit of monitoring systems.英格兰国民保健服务体系(NHS)医院中压疮与伤口报告 第1部分:监测系统审计
J Tissue Viability. 2016 Feb;25(1):3-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2015.11.001. Epub 2015 Nov 24.
3
Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance.
目的 T 在临床实践和患者参与中的可行性:一项混合方法研究。
Int Wound J. 2023 Mar;20(3):633-647. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13904. Epub 2022 Jul 20.
4
Risk factors for hospital-acquired and community-acquired pressure injuries: a multicentre mixed case-control study.医院获得性和社区获得性压力性损伤的危险因素:一项多中心混合病例对照研究。
BMJ Open. 2022 Apr 18;12(4):e057624. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057624.
5
Risk factors and the potential of nomogram for predicting hospital-acquired pressure injuries.预测医院获得性压疮的风险因素和列线图预测模型。
Int Wound J. 2020 Aug;17(4):974-986. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13362. Epub 2020 Apr 7.
6
Thyroxine (T4) may promote re-epithelialisation and angiogenesis in wounded human skin ex vivo.甲状腺素(T4)可能促进体外培养的人皮肤创面的再上皮化和血管生成。
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 29;14(3):e0212659. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212659. eCollection 2019.
7
Preventing pressure injuries in the emergency department: Current evidence and practice considerations.预防急诊科的压力性损伤:当前证据和实践注意事项。
Int Wound J. 2019 Jun;16(3):746-752. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13092. Epub 2019 Feb 27.
复杂干预措施的过程评估:医学研究委员会指南。
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258.
4
Developing a pressure ulcer risk factor minimum data set and risk assessment framework.制定压疮危险因素最小数据集和风险评估框架。
J Adv Nurs. 2014 Oct;70(10):2339-52. doi: 10.1111/jan.12444. Epub 2014 May 21.
5
A new pressure ulcer conceptual framework.一个新的压疮概念框架。
J Adv Nurs. 2014 Oct;70(10):2222-34. doi: 10.1111/jan.12405. Epub 2014 Mar 31.
6
Why do patients develop severe pressure ulcers? A retrospective case study.为什么患者会出现严重的压疮?一项回顾性病例研究。
BMJ Open. 2014 Jan 2;4(1):e004303. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004303.
7
The prevalence of pain at pressure areas and pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients.住院患者压疮及压痛点疼痛的患病率。
BMC Nurs. 2013 Jul 31;12(1):19. doi: 10.1186/1472-6955-12-19.
8
Patient risk factors for pressure ulcer development: systematic review.患者发生压疮的风险因素:系统评价。
Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Jul;50(7):974-1003. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.11.019. Epub 2013 Feb 1.
9
The cost of pressure ulcers in the United Kingdom.英国压疮的成本。
J Wound Care. 2012 Jun;21(6):261-2, 264, 266. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2012.21.6.261.
10
Assessing the value of diagnostic tests: a framework for designing and evaluating trials.评估诊断试验的价值:设计和评估试验的框架
BMJ. 2012 Feb 21;344:e686. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e686.