Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ British Journal of N...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
British Journal of Nursing
Article . 2010 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
UQ eSpace
Article . 2010
Data sources: UQ eSpace
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

Validity of the Waterlow scale and risk of pressure injury in acute care

Authors: Webster, Joan; Gavin, Nicole; Nicholas, Catherine; Coleman, Kerrie; Gardner, Glenn;

Validity of the Waterlow scale and risk of pressure injury in acute care

Abstract

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.

Country
Australia
Keywords

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

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    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%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
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).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
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.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
28
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Green
bronze