Premium
Clinical utility of the German Ghent Global IAD Categorization tool including incontinence‐associated dermatitis prevalence and categories
Author(s) -
Hödl Manuela,
Eglseer Doris,
Lohrmann Christa
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
international journal of urological nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.184
H-Index - 8
eISSN - 1749-771X
pISSN - 1749-7701
DOI - 10.1111/ijun.12185
Subject(s) - medicine , german , urinary incontinence , family medicine , categorization , test (biology) , cross sectional study , surgery , pathology , paleontology , philosophy , archaeology , epistemology , biology , history
Is the German pilot version of the Ghent Global IAD Categorization (GLOBIAD) tool a clinical useful tool from the users' perspective and what are the incontinence‐associated dermatitis (IAD) prevalence and categories in the hospital and geriatric settings? Before evaluating the psychometric properties of an instrument, it is recommended to carry out a pre‐test with target users. Recent research on IAD has focused on the design and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the English GLOBIAD. In 2017, the annual, multicentre, cross‐sectional survey was conducted. This survey includes the German pilot version of the GLOBIAD tool as well as the Staff View Assessment Instrument, a questionnaire distributed to evaluate the clinical utility of the German pilot version of the GLOBIAD tool. The majority of the patients in both types of institutions were female with average ages of 66 years (hospital setting) and 82 years (geriatric setting). Patients in the geriatric institution (N = 634) were statistically significantly more care dependent compared to hospital patients (N = 2955). Patients in the geriatric institutions suffered statistically significantly more often from urinary, faecal and double (UI, FI, DI) incontinence than hospital patients. More than 75% of the ward nurses agreed that the German pilot version of the GLOBIAD tool was useful. The highest IAD prevalence was observed in the DI hospital patients, who were statistically significantly more often affected by IAD than geriatric patients. Due to the high level of agreement regarding the clinical utility of this tool, we can recommend it to clinicians. As this was a pilot version of the tool, further testing of the psychometric properties of this version in hospital and geriatric settings is warranted.