
AbstractThe occurrence of pressure ulcers was examined in a cross‐sectional study in 23 health care facilities and in home care involving 548 patients. The screening of pressure ulcer risk was assessed simultaneously using the Braden Scale and the new Shape Risk Scale (SRS), and the results were compared. The overall prevalence of pressure ulcers in the study population was 15·5% (85/548). The Braden Scale was performed as described in the literature. The direct concordance of the Braden and SRS scales was 46%. In more than 90% of cases, the SRS classified patients as well as or better than the Braden Scale. The SRS allocates patients significantly different from the Braden Scale into the risk categories, especially the difference is significant between the low and medium‐risk categories. The greatest advantage of SRS to Braden Scale is that it correctly identifies patients with low risk of pressure ulcers. It is interesting that the two risk scores, taking into consideration the basically different pathophysiological factors, can still give rather similar results. The users considered that both scales are easy to use.
Adult, Male, Adolescent, Consciousness, prevalence, Motor Activity, Risk Assessment, Body Temperature, Young Adult, Predictive Value of Tests, Prevalence, Humans, Aged, Shape Risk Scale, Aged, 80 and over, Pressure Ulcer, pressure ulcer, risk tool, Middle Aged, Braden, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female
Adult, Male, Adolescent, Consciousness, prevalence, Motor Activity, Risk Assessment, Body Temperature, Young Adult, Predictive Value of Tests, Prevalence, Humans, Aged, Shape Risk Scale, Aged, 80 and over, Pressure Ulcer, pressure ulcer, risk tool, Middle Aged, Braden, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 6 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
