Premium
Clinical evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool ( PURPOSE T)
Author(s) -
Coleman Susanne,
Smith Isabelle L.,
McGinnis Elizabeth,
Keen Justin,
Muir Delia,
Wilson Lyn,
Stubbs Nikki,
Dealey Carol,
Brown Sarah,
Nelson E. Andrea,
Nixon Jane
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of advanced nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.948
H-Index - 155
eISSN - 1365-2648
pISSN - 0309-2402
DOI - 10.1111/jan.13444
Subject(s) - medicine , usability , observational study , risk assessment , test (biology) , convergent validity , risk management tools , face validity , physical therapy , family medicine , nursing , psychometrics , clinical psychology , internal consistency , patient satisfaction , human–computer interaction , computer science , biology , paleontology , computer security
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 re SE arch ( 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.