
Aim: To assess the validity of the Waterlow screening tool in a cohort of internal medicine patients and to identify factors contributing to pressure injury. Method:A longitudinal cohort study design was used. A total of 274 patients (mean age 65.3 years) admitted through the emergency department or outpatient clinics of a tertiary hospital in Brisbane, Australia, and expected to remain in hospital for at least 3 days were screened on admission using the Waterlow screening tool. Their pressure ulcer status was monitored and recorded every second day. The main outcome measure was pressure ulcer incidence. Results: Fifteen participants (5.5%) had an existing pressure ulcer and a further 12 (4.4%) developed a pressure ulcer during their hospital stay. Sensitivity of the Waterlow scale was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35–0.88), specificity was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73–0.85), positive predictive value was 0.13 (95% CI: 0.07–0.24) and negative predictive value was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.94–0.99). Conclusion: This study provides further evidence of the poor predictive validity of the Waterlow scale. A suitably powered, randomized controlled trial is urgently needed to provide definitive evidence about the usefulness of the Waterlow scale compared with other screening tools and with clinical judgment.
360, Male, Pressure Ulcer, Clinical Nursing: Secondary (Acute Care), Reproducibility of Results, Acute care, Nursing, Risk Assessment, C1, 920203 Diagnostic Methods, Predictive Value of Tests, Health Status Indicators, Humans, 111702 Aged Health Care, Waterlow scale, Female, Longitudinal Studies, Queensland, Pressure injury, Aged
360, Male, Pressure Ulcer, Clinical Nursing: Secondary (Acute Care), Reproducibility of Results, Acute care, Nursing, Risk Assessment, C1, 920203 Diagnostic Methods, Predictive Value of Tests, Health Status Indicators, Humans, 111702 Aged Health Care, Waterlow scale, Female, Longitudinal Studies, Queensland, Pressure injury, Aged
| 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). | 28 | |
| 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. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
