Cent Eur J Nurs Midw 2015, 6(3):283-290 | DOI: 10.15452/CEJNM.2015.06.0017

Predictive validity of the Braden scale, Norton scale and Waterlow scale in Slovak Republic

Lenka Šáteková1,*, Katarína Žiaková2, Renáta Zeleníková1
1 Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Czech Republic
2 Department of Nursing, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia

Aim: To determine the levels of predictive validity of scales for assessing the risk of pressure ulcers (Braden, Norton and Waterlow scales) in the Slovak clinical setting.

Design: A prospective study.

Methods: One hundred patients staying in a long-term care department of a hospital from April to August 2014 were investigated using the Braden, Norton and Waterlow scales. The inclusion criteria were age over 18 years and having no pressure ulcers on admission to the department. The predictive validity of the pressure ulcer risk assessment scales was evaluated based on sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and the area under the ROC curve.

Results: The incidence of pressure ulcers in the study was 14%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 85.71%, 53.48%, 23.07% and 95.83%, respectively, for the Braden Scale (a cut-off point of 15); 85.71%, 48.83%, 21.42% and 95.45%, respectively, for the Norton Scale (a cut-off of 12); and 85.71%, 30.23%, 16.66% and 92.85%, respectively, for the Waterlow Scale (a cut-off of 13). The areas under the ROC curve were 0.696 (Braden), 0.672 (Norton) and 0.579 (Waterlow).

Conclusion: In the present study, the best predictive validity values, with little differences, were observed for the Braden Scale, followed by the Norton Scale and the Waterlow Scale, in that order.

Keywords: Braden Scale, Norton Scale, Waterlow Scale, pressure ulcer, risk assessment, validity

Received: March 5, 2015; Accepted: April 30, 2015; Published: September 30, 2015  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Šáteková L, Žiaková K, Zeleníková R. Predictive validity of the Braden scale, Norton scale and Waterlow scale in Slovak Republic. Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery. 2015;6(3):283-290. doi: 10.15452/CEJNM.2015.06.0017.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Araújo TM, Araújo MFM, Caetano JÁ. Comparison of risk assessment scales for pressure ulcers in critically ill patients. Acta Paulista Enfermagem. 2011;24(5):695-700. Go to original source...
    2. Bell J. Are pressure ulcer grading & risk assessment tools useful? Wounds UK. 2005;1(2):62-69.
    3. Bennett G, Dealey C, Posnett J. The cost of pressure ulcers in the UK. Age Ageing. 2004;33(3):230-235. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    4. Bergstrom N, Braden BJ, Laguzza A, Holman V. The Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Nursing Research. 1987;36(4):205-210. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    5. Bóriková I. Prevencia rizika vzniku dekubitov. In. Dušová B, Jarošová D, Vrublová Y, editors. Trendy ošetřovatelství IV. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita v Ostravě, 2006. p. 20-26. (in Czech)
    6. Bóriková I, Žiaková K, Gurková E. Meranie a merací nástroj. In. Žiaková K et al., editors. Ošetrovateľstvo teória a vedecký výskum. Martin: Osveta, 2009. s. 220. (in Slovak)
    7. Costa IG, Caliri MHL. Predictive validity of the Braden Scale for patients in intensive care (portuguese). Acta Paulista de Enfermagem. 2011;24(6):772-777. Go to original source...
    8. Defloor T, Grypdonck MFH. Pressure ulcers: validation of two risk assessment scales. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2005;14(3):373-382. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    9. Feuchtinger J, Halfens R, Dassen T. Pressure ulcer risk assessment immediately after cardiac surgery - does it make a difference? A comparison of three pressure ulcer risk assessment instruments within a cardiac surgery population. Nursing in critical care. 2007;12(1),42-49. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. González-Ruiz JM, Núňez-Méndez P, Balugo-Huerta S, Navarro-DelaPeňa L, García-Martín MR. Validity study of the current risk assessment scale for pressure ulcers in intensive care (EVARUCI). Enfermería Intensiva. 2008;19(3):123-129. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. Graves N, Birrell F, Whitby M. Effect of pressure ulcers on length of hospital stay. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 2005;26(3):293-297. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Hopkins A, Dealey C, Bale S, Defloor T, Worboys F. Patient stories of living with a pressure ulcer. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2006;56(4):345-353. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    13. Hyun, S, Vermillion B, Newton Ch, Fall M, Li X, Kaewprag P, Moffatt-Bruce S, Lenz ER. Predictive validity of the Braden scale for patients in intensive care units. American Journal of Critical Care. 2013;22(6):514-520. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    14. Chan WS, Pang SMCH, Kwong EWY. Assessing predictive validity of the modified Braden scale for prediction of pressure ulcer risk of orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting. Journal of clinical nursing. 2009;17(11):1565-1573. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Kim E, Choi M, Lee J, Kim YA. Reusability of EMR Data for Applying Cubbin and Jackson Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale in Critical Care Patients. Healtcare Informatics Research. 2013;19(4):261-270. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    16. Kwong E, Pang S, Wong T, Ho J, Shao-ling X, Li-jun T. Predicting pressure ulcer risk with the modified Braden, Braden, and Norton scales in acute care hospitals in Mainland China. Applied nursing research: ANR. 2005;17(2):122-128. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    17. Lindgren M, Unosson M, Krantz AM, Ek AC. A risk assessment scale for the prediction of pressure sore development: reliability and validity. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2002; 38(2):190-199. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    18. Liu M, Cen W, Liao Q, Gu Q, Hsu M, Poon A. Validation of two pressure ulcer risk assessment scales among chinese ICU patients. Revista de Enfermagem Referencia. 2013;3(9):145- 159. Go to original source...
    19. Lyder CH. Pressure ulcer prevention and management. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2003;289(2):223-226. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    20. Ministerstvo zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky. Nariadenie vlády č. 51/2009, ktorým sa vydávajú indikátory kvality na hodnotenie poskytovania zdravotnej starostlivosti. Bratislava, Slovenská republika: Ministerstvo zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky; 2009 [cited 2015 May 2]. Available from: http://www.health.gov.sk/?nariadenia (in Slovak)
    21. Ministerstvo zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky. Nariadenie vlády č. 663/2005, ktorým sa vydávajú indikátory kvality na hodnotenie poskytovania zdravotnej starostlivosti. Bratislava, Slovenská republika: Ministerstvo zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky; 2005 [cited 2015 May 2]. Available from: http://www.health.gov.sk/?nariadenia (in Slovak)
    22. Ministerstvo zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky. Zákon č. 581/2004 o zdravotných poisťovniach, dohľade nad zdravotnou starostlivosťou a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov. Bratislava, Slovenská republika: Ministerstvo zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky; 2004 [cited 2015 May 2]. Available from: http://www.health.gov.sk/?zakony (in Slovak)
    23. Ministerstvo zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky. Vestník Ministerstva zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky. Bratislava, Slovenská republika: Ministerstvo zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky; 2013 [cited 2015 May 2]. Available from: http://www.health.gov.sk/?vestniky-mz-sr (in Slovak)
    24. Ministerstvo zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky. Vyhláška 364/2005 o rozsahu ošetrovateľskej praxe poskytovanej sestrou samostatne a v spolupráci s lekárom a rozsahu praxe pôrodnej asistencie poskytovanej pôrodnou asistentkou samostatne a v spolupráci s lekárom. Bratislava, Slovenská republika: Ministerstvo zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky; 2005 [cited 2015 Aug 15]. Available from: http://jaspi.justice.gov.sk/jaspiw1/htm_zak/jaspiw_mini_zak_zobraz_clanok1.asp?kotva=k1&skupina=1 (in Slovak)
    25. Ministerstvo zdravotnictví České republiky. Sledování dekubitů jako indikátoru kvality ošetřovatelské péče na národní úrovni. Ministerstvo zdravotnictví České republiky; 2009. [cited 2015 May 2]. Available from: http://www.mzcr.cz/dokumenty/sledovani-dekubitu-jakoindikatoru-kvality-osetrovatelske-pece-na-narodniurovni_7385_2842_29.html (in Czech)
    26. Moore Z, Price P. Nurses' attitudes, behaviours and perceived barriers towards pressure ulcer prevention. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2004;13(8):942-951. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    27. Norton D, McLaren R, Exton-Smith AN. An Investigation of Geriatric Nursing Problems in Hospital. London: National Corporation for the Care of Old People, 1962.
    28. NPUAP, EPUAP. Pressure Ulcer Prevention. Quick Reference Guide. NPUAP and EPUAP. 2009. [cited 2015 Feb 5]. Available from: http://www.npuap.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/02/Final_Quick_Prevention_for_web_2010.pdf O'Tuathail C, Taqi R. Evaluation of three commonly used pressure ulcer risk assessment scales. British Journal of Nursing. 2011;20(6):27-34.
    29. Pancorbo-Hidalgo PL, Garcia-Fernandez FP, Lopez-Medina IM, Alvarez-Nieto C. Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2006;54(1):94-110. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    30. Royal college of nursing. Pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention. London: Royal college of nursing. 2001. [cited 2015 Feb 5]. Available from: http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/78501/001252.pdf
    31. Serpa LF, Santos VLCG, Campanili TCGF, Queiroz M. Predictive Validity of the Braden Scale for Pressure Ulcer Risk in Critical Care Patients. Revista Latino - americana de enfermagen. 2011;19(1):50-57. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    32. Suriadi, Sanada H, Sugama J, Thigpen B, Subuh M. Development of a new assessment scale for predicting pressure ulcers in an intensive care unit. Nursing in critical care. 2008;13(1):34-43. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    33. Šáteková L, Žiaková K. Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: review. Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery. 2014;5(2):85-92.
    34. Tannen A, Balzer K, Kottner J, Dassen T, Halfens R, Mertens E. Diagnostic accuracy of two pressure ulcer risk scales and a generic nursing assessment tool. A psychometric comparison. Journal of clinical nursing. 2010;19(11-12):1510-1518. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    35. Thompson D. An evaluation of the Waterlow pressure ulcer risk-assessment tool. British Journal of Nursing. 2005;14(8):455-459. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    36. Torrance C. Pressure Sores: Aetiology, Treatment and Prevention. Kent: Croom Helm, 1983.
    37. Twycroos A, Shields L. Validity and reliability - What´s it all about? Paediatric Nursing. 2004;16(9):28. Go to original source...
    38. Verdú J, López P, Fuentes G, Torrá JE. Prevención de UPP e n talones. Impacto clínico y económico en una unidad de medicina interna. Revista ROL de Enfermería. 2004;27(4):620-624.
    39. Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa. Vyhodnotenie indikátorov kvality za rok 2010. Bratislava, Slovenská republika: Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa; 2010 [cited 2015 May 2]. Available from: https://www.vszp.sk/poskytovatelia/indikatorykvality/vyhodnotenie-indikatorov-za-rok-2010/ (in Slovak)
    40. Waterlow J. A risk assessment card. Nursing Times. 1985;81(48):51-55.
    41. Webster J, Gavin N, Nicholas C, Coleman K, Gardner G. Validity of the Waterlow scale and risk of pressure injury in acute care. British Journal of Nursing. 2010;19(6):14-18. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content