Jin Yinji, Jin Taixian, Lee Sun-Mi
Yinji Jin, RN, PhD, is Research Associate; Taixian Jin, MSN, is Research Assistant; and Sun-Mi Lee, RN, PhD, is Professor, College of Nursing, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Nurs Res. 2017 Nov/Dec;66(6):462-472. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000245.
Pressure injury risk assessment is the first step toward preventing pressure injuries, but traditional assessment tools are time-consuming, resulting in work overload and fatigue for nurses.
The objectives of the study were to build an automated pressure injury risk assessment system (Auto-PIRAS) that can assess pressure injury risk using data, without requiring nurses to collect or input additional data, and to evaluate the validity of this assessment tool.
A retrospective case-control study and a system development study were conducted in a 1,355-bed university hospital in Seoul, South Korea. A total of 1,305 pressure injury patients and 5,220 nonpressure injury patients participated for the development of a risk scoring algorithm: 687 and 2,748 for the validation of the algorithm and 237 and 994 for validation after clinical implementation, respectively. A total of 4,211 pressure injury-related clinical variables were extracted from the electronic health record (EHR) systems to develop a risk scoring algorithm, which was validated and incorporated into the EHR. That program was further evaluated for predictive and concurrent validity.
Auto-PIRAS, incorporated into the EHR system, assigned a risk assessment score of high, moderate, or low and displayed this on the Kardex nursing record screen. Risk scores were updated nightly according to 10 predetermined risk factors. The predictive validity measures of the algorithm validation stage were as follows: sensitivity = .87, specificity = .90, positive predictive value = .68, negative predictive value = .97, Youden index = .77, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = .95. The predictive validity measures of the Braden Scale were as follows: sensitivity = .77, specificity = .93, positive predictive value = .72, negative predictive value = .95, Youden index = .70, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = .85. The kappa of the Auto-PIRAS and Braden Scale risk classification result was .73.
The predictive performance of the Auto-PIRAS was similar to Braden Scale assessments conducted by nurses. Auto-PIRAS is expected to be used as a system that assesses pressure injury risk automatically without additional data collection by nurses.
压力性损伤风险评估是预防压力性损伤的第一步,但传统评估工具耗时,导致护士工作负担过重和疲劳。
本研究的目的是建立一个自动压力性损伤风险评估系统(Auto-PIRAS),该系统可以使用数据评估压力性损伤风险,而无需护士收集或输入额外数据,并评估该评估工具的有效性。
在韩国首尔一家拥有1355张床位的大学医院进行了一项回顾性病例对照研究和系统开发研究。共有1305例压力性损伤患者和5220例非压力性损伤患者参与了风险评分算法的开发:分别有687例和2748例用于算法验证,237例和994例用于临床实施后的验证。从电子健康记录(EHR)系统中提取了总共4211个与压力性损伤相关的临床变量,以开发风险评分算法,该算法经过验证并纳入EHR。该程序进一步评估了预测效度和同时效度。
纳入EHR系统的Auto-PIRAS给出了高、中或低的风险评估分数,并在 Kardex护理记录屏幕上显示。风险分数根据10个预先确定的风险因素每晚更新一次。算法验证阶段的预测效度指标如下:灵敏度 = 0.87,特异度 = 0.90,阳性预测值 = 0.68,阴性预测值 = 0.97,约登指数 = 0.77,受试者工作特征曲线下面积 = 0.95。Braden量表的预测效度指标如下:灵敏度 = 0.77,特异度 = 0.93,阳性预测值 = 0.72,阴性预测值 = 0.95,约登指数 = 0.70,受试者工作特征曲线下面积 = 0.85。Auto-PIRAS和Braden量表风险分类结果的kappa值为0.73。
Auto-PIRAS的预测性能与护士进行的Braden量表评估相似。Auto-PIRAS有望作为一种无需护士额外收集数据即可自动评估压力性损伤风险的系统使用。