Predictive validity of a pressure injury risk assessment tool at different time-points in patients admitted to the intensive care unit.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING Nursing in Critical Care Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-19 DOI:10.1111/nicc.13059
Angel Cobos-Vargas, Maria Acosta-Romero, Luis Camado-Sojo, Carmen Alba-Fernández, Esther Rodriguez-Delgado, Manuel Colmenero
{"title":"Predictive validity of a pressure injury risk assessment tool at different time-points in patients admitted to the intensive care unit.","authors":"Angel Cobos-Vargas, Maria Acosta-Romero, Luis Camado-Sojo, Carmen Alba-Fernández, Esther Rodriguez-Delgado, Manuel Colmenero","doi":"10.1111/nicc.13059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multiple risk assessment scales are available for predicting the development of pressure injuries (PIs) in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Most PI risk assessment tools have been validated at the time of admission; however, another time point during treatment could better reflect clinical changes and therefore, the risk of PIs.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The study aimed to examine the predictive validity of PI risk assessment scale designed for ICU patients, the conscious level, mobility, haemodynamic, oxygenation and nutrition (COMHON) index, at several time points or intervals during ICU stay.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This was an observational prospective study undertaken over a period of 1 year (July 2021-June 2022). Patients admitted to ICU for >3 days were included. The number, location and degree of the PIs were recorded. The level of risk for developing PIs during the stay was determined by calculating the COMHON scores at admission, and 72 h, as well as the highest and mean score. Predictive validity was studied using accuracy parameters and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The best cutoff point was also determined and used to compare risk between categories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 286 patients included in the study, 160 (59%) were male. The level of severity evaluated using the APACHE II scale was 18.4 ± 5.8 points. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 32.1% (n = 92) of the patients and 20.6% (n = 59) received high flow oxygen therapy. The incidence of PI was 15.4% (n = 44), with sacral location in 47.7% (n = 21) and grade II in 75% (n = 33) of the patients. The AUC was 0.907 (0.872-0.942); 0.881 (0.842-0.920); 0.877 (0.835-0.920) and 0.749 (0.667-0.831) at the mean, the highest, 72 h and ICU admission scores, respectively. The best cutoff point was 13 in all patients. The risk of developing a PI was 6.4 times higher in the high-risk group (>13 points).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The best predictive capacity for the COMHON index risk assessment was the mean and highest scores. The predictive accuracy was higher on the third day of the patient's stay than on admission, and this was attributed to the clinical changes observed in some patients over the course of their critical illness.</p><p><strong>Relevance for clinical practice: </strong>Patients in ICU are at high risk of developing PIs, therefore, preventive measures should be maximized. Risk assessment should be carried out sequentially owing to the changes that patients present throughout their ICU stay and preventive measures should be used according to the risk level.</p>","PeriodicalId":51264,"journal":{"name":"Nursing in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"1721-1728"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing in Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.13059","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Multiple risk assessment scales are available for predicting the development of pressure injuries (PIs) in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Most PI risk assessment tools have been validated at the time of admission; however, another time point during treatment could better reflect clinical changes and therefore, the risk of PIs.

Aim: The study aimed to examine the predictive validity of PI risk assessment scale designed for ICU patients, the conscious level, mobility, haemodynamic, oxygenation and nutrition (COMHON) index, at several time points or intervals during ICU stay.

Study design: This was an observational prospective study undertaken over a period of 1 year (July 2021-June 2022). Patients admitted to ICU for >3 days were included. The number, location and degree of the PIs were recorded. The level of risk for developing PIs during the stay was determined by calculating the COMHON scores at admission, and 72 h, as well as the highest and mean score. Predictive validity was studied using accuracy parameters and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The best cutoff point was also determined and used to compare risk between categories.

Results: Of the 286 patients included in the study, 160 (59%) were male. The level of severity evaluated using the APACHE II scale was 18.4 ± 5.8 points. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 32.1% (n = 92) of the patients and 20.6% (n = 59) received high flow oxygen therapy. The incidence of PI was 15.4% (n = 44), with sacral location in 47.7% (n = 21) and grade II in 75% (n = 33) of the patients. The AUC was 0.907 (0.872-0.942); 0.881 (0.842-0.920); 0.877 (0.835-0.920) and 0.749 (0.667-0.831) at the mean, the highest, 72 h and ICU admission scores, respectively. The best cutoff point was 13 in all patients. The risk of developing a PI was 6.4 times higher in the high-risk group (>13 points).

Conclusions: The best predictive capacity for the COMHON index risk assessment was the mean and highest scores. The predictive accuracy was higher on the third day of the patient's stay than on admission, and this was attributed to the clinical changes observed in some patients over the course of their critical illness.

Relevance for clinical practice: Patients in ICU are at high risk of developing PIs, therefore, preventive measures should be maximized. Risk assessment should be carried out sequentially owing to the changes that patients present throughout their ICU stay and preventive measures should be used according to the risk level.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
压力损伤风险评估工具在重症监护室住院患者不同时间点的预测有效性。
背景:目前有多种风险评估量表可用于预测重症监护病房(ICU)患者发生压力损伤(PIs)的风险。大多数压力损伤风险评估工具已在入院时得到验证;然而,治疗过程中的另一个时间点可以更好地反映临床变化,从而反映压力损伤的风险。研究目的:本研究旨在检验为重症监护室患者设计的压力损伤风险评估量表(意识水平、活动能力、血流动力学、氧饱和度和营养(COMHON)指数)在重症监护室住院期间的多个时间点或时间间隔的预测有效性:这是一项为期一年(2021 年 7 月至 2022 年 6 月)的前瞻性观察研究。研究对象包括入住重症监护室超过 3 天的患者。研究记录了PI的数量、位置和程度。通过计算入院时和 72 小时内的 COMHON 评分以及最高分和平均分,确定住院期间发生 PIs 的风险水平。使用准确性参数和接收者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)对预测有效性进行了研究。此外,还确定了最佳分界点,并用于比较不同类别之间的风险:在纳入研究的 286 名患者中,有 160 名男性(占 59%)。使用 APACHE II 量表评估的严重程度为 18.4 ± 5.8 分。32.1%的患者(92 人)使用了侵入性机械通气,20.6%的患者(59 人)接受了高流量供氧治疗。PI发生率为15.4%(n = 44),骶骨位置占47.7%(n = 21),75%(n = 33)的患者为II级。平均评分、最高评分、72 h评分和ICU入院评分的AUC分别为0.907(0.872-0.942);0.881(0.842-0.920);0.877(0.835-0.920)和0.749(0.667-0.831)。所有患者的最佳截断点均为 13。高风险组(>13 分)发生 PI 的风险是普通组的 6.4 倍:结论:COMHON指数风险评估的最佳预测能力是平均分和最高分。结论:COMHON 指数风险评估的最佳预测能力是平均分和最高分,患者住院第三天的预测准确率高于入院时的预测准确率,这是因为在危重病人的病程中观察到一些患者的临床变化:对临床实践的意义:重症监护病房的患者极有可能患上肺结核,因此应尽量采取预防措施。由于患者在入住重症监护病房期间会出现各种变化,因此应按顺序进行风险评估,并根据风险等级采取预防措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
109
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing in Critical Care is an international peer-reviewed journal covering any aspect of critical care nursing practice, research, education or management. Critical care nursing is defined as the whole spectrum of skills, knowledge and attitudes utilised by practitioners in any setting where adults or children, and their families, are experiencing acute and critical illness. Such settings encompass general and specialist hospitals, and the community. Nursing in Critical Care covers the diverse specialities of critical care nursing including surgery, medicine, cardiac, renal, neurosciences, haematology, obstetrics, accident and emergency, neonatal nursing and paediatrics. Papers published in the journal normally fall into one of the following categories: -research reports -literature reviews -developments in practice, education or management -reflections on practice
期刊最新文献
Burnout, collective efficacy and the social network of an intensive care unit. Relationship between ICU nurses' perception of patient safety, caring behaviour, professional self-efficacy and nursing deficits: A multiple mediation analysis. Patients' and family members' dyadic experience of post-operative delirium in the intensive care unit: A qualitative study. Difference between estimated and actual body weight in an intensive care unit-A service evaluation. Final-year nursing students' placement experiences in a critical care setting: A qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1