Volume 20 Issue 4
Apr.  2022
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
ZHANG Zhong, LI Qing, DENG Guo-ying, WANG Mei, ZHANG Yuan, LIN Ying. Clinical verification and application of the modified Waterlow scale[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practice, 2022, 20(4): 700-703. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002434
Citation: ZHANG Zhong, LI Qing, DENG Guo-ying, WANG Mei, ZHANG Yuan, LIN Ying. Clinical verification and application of the modified Waterlow scale[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practice, 2022, 20(4): 700-703. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002434

Clinical verification and application of the modified Waterlow scale

doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002434
Funds:

 71432007

 Jyh1813

  • Received Date: 2021-04-21
    Available Online: 2022-08-20
  •   Objective  After simplifying the commonly used Waterlow scale, the modified version was obtained and clinically verified.  Methods  A total of 204 cases were analysed retrospectively by attribute reduction method, and the improved Waterlow scale was obtained. Afterward, from June to November 2019, 249 inpatients from Shanghai General Hospital were selected for a prospective study, Paired chi square test and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) were used to compare the prediction effect of these two scales.  Results  When the optimal critical value of the modified Waterlow scale was 9.5 marks, it had good sensitivity (0.893) and specificity (0.963), and the maximum value of Youden index (sensitivity + specificity-1) was 0.856. Moreover, the area under the ROC curve of the modified Waterlow scale and the traditional Waterlow scale were 0.879 and 0.931, respectively (both >0.7). The rate of positive case detection was 60.24% for the modified Waterlow scale and 76.31% for the traditional Waterlow scale. The kappa test value was 0.737 (> 0.7), and the result of McNemar test was no statistical difference, which indicated that the consistency of these two scales is established (χ2=0.042, P=0.838). Moreover, no statistical difference was observed between these two scales.  Conclusion  The modified Waterlow scale has highly scientific. The detection efficiency is consistent with the traditional Waterlow scale, the prediction accuracy is high, and there are few evaluation items and easy to use, which can effectively improve the efficiency of nursing work.

     

  • loading
  • [1]
    童琍琍, 赵梅. 国内压疮评估量表的应用进展[J]. 护理管理杂志, 2019, 19(4): 275-279. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-315x.2019.04.012

    TONG L L, ZHAO M. Application progress of pressure ulcer evaluation scale in China[J]. J Nurs Manage, 2019, 019 (4): 275-279. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-315x.2019.04.012
    [2]
    CHARALAMBOUS C, KOULORI A, VASILOPOULOS A, et al. Evaluation of the validity and reliability of the Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment scale[J]. Med Arch, 2018, 72(2): 141-144. doi: 10.5455/medarh.2018.72.141-144
    [3]
    BRIENZA D, KRISHNAN S, KARG P, et al. Predictors of pressure ulcer incidence following traumatic spinal cord injury: A secondary analysis of a prospective longitudinal study[J]. Spinal cord, 2018, 56(1): 28-34. doi: 10.1038/sc.2017.96
    [4]
    MERVIS J S, PHILLIPS T J. Pressure ulcers: Pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors, and presentation[J]. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2019, 81(4): 881-890. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.069
    [5]
    孙留梅, 陶琳, 易银萍, 等. 基于改良Waterlow压疮风险评估表的压力性损伤管理在重症患者ICU住院期间的应用效果观察[J]. 齐鲁护理杂志, 2021, 27(16): 21-24. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7256.2021.16.007

    SUN L M, TAO L, YI Y P, et al. Application effect of pressure ulcer management based on improved Waterlow scale in ICU patients[J]. Qilu J Nurs, 2021, 27 (16): 21-24. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7256.2021.16.007
    [6]
    龚艳, 蒋琪霞, 陈文芳, 等. 手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表对手术患者压力性损伤预测效果的研究[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(9): 66-70. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-NFHL202109014.htm

    Gong Y, Jiang Q X, Chen W F, et al. Study on the predictive effect of surgical acquired pressure ulcer scale on surgical patients[J]. J Nurs, 2021, 28 (9): 66-70. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-NFHL202109014.htm
    [7]
    庄丽娟, 梁桂仙, 徐瑜涓, 等. 基于治疗干预评分系统和护理工时测量的ICU护理人力资源配置模型研究[J]. 护理研究, 2018, 32(14): 2208-2211. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SXHZ201814015.htm

    Zhuang L J, Liang G X, Xu Y J, et al. Research on ICU nursing human resource allocation model based on treatment intervention scoring system and nursing work hour measurement[J]. Nurs Res, 2018, 610 (14): 54-57. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SXHZ201814015.htm
    [8]
    COLEMAN S, SMITH I L, MCGINNIS E, et al. Clinical evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, the pressure ulcer risk primary or secondary evaluation tool (purpose t)[J]. J Adv Nurs, 2018, 74(2): 407-424. doi: 10.1111/jan.13444
    [9]
    周洋, 王繁可, 杨朵儿, 等. 南京市某三甲专科医院人力资源配置状况及投入产出效率分析[J]. 中华全科医学, 2021, 19(10): 1768-1771. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002163

    Zhou Y, Wang F K, Yang D E, et al. Analysis on human resource allocation and invest-produce efficiency of a class Ⅲ specialized hospital in Nanjing[J]. Chin J Gen Pract, 2021, 19 (10): 1768-1771. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002163
    [10]
    姚捷, 孙志明, 施雯慧, 等. 老龄化背景下江苏省护理人力资源配置公平性研究[J]. 中国临床研究, 2021, 34(8): 1148-1152. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGCK202108035.htm

    Yao J, Sun Z M, Shi W H, et al. Study on the fairness of nursing human resources allocation in Jiangsu Province under the background of aging[J]. Chin Clin Res, 2021, 34 (8): 1148-1152. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGCK202108035.htm
    [11]
    陈慧玲, 王淑东. Waterlow压力性损伤量表与Braden压力性量表在预测ICU病人压疮预防中的价值[J]. 蚌埠医学院学报, 2020, 45(8): 1107-1109, 1113.

    Chen H L, Wang S D. Value of Waterlow scale and Braden scale in predicting pressure ulcer prevention in ICU patients[J]. J Bengbu Med Coll, 2020, 45(8): 1107-1109, 1113.
    [12]
    WATERLOW J. Pressure sores: A risk assessment card[J]. Nurs Times, 1985, 81(48): 49-55.
    [13]
    姜安丽. 新编护理学基础[M]. 2版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2012: 371.

    Jiang A L. Newly compiled fundamentals of nursing[M]. 2th ed. Beijing: People ' s Medical Publishing House, 2012: 371.
    [14]
    赵上萍, 陈红. 中文版类风湿关节炎自我效能量表信度与效度检验[J]. 护理研究, 2019, 33(10): 1681-1685. doi: 10.12102/j.issn.1009-6493.2019.10.009

    Zhao S P, Chen H. Reliability and validity test of Chinese rheumatoid arthritis self-efficacy scale[J]. Nurs Res, 2019, 33(10): 1681-1685. doi: 10.12102/j.issn.1009-6493.2019.10.009
    [15]
    李春朋. 两种量表在预测ICU患者压力性损伤风险的对比研究[D]. 晋中: 山西中医药大学, 2019.

    Li C P. Comparative study of two scales in predicting the risk of pressure ulcer in ICU patients[D]. Jinzhong: Shanxi University of traditional Chinese medicine, 2019.
    [16]
    曹艳, 徐春艳, 杨丽红, 等. 两种评估量表对肿瘤病人压疮评价的比较研究[J]. 护理研究, 2017, 31(4): 479-482. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6493.2017.04.027

    Cao Y, Xu C Y, Yang L H, et al. Comparative study of two scales in the evaluation of pressure ulcer for tumor patients[J]. Nurs Res, 2017, 31 (4): 479-482. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6493.2017.04.027
    [17]
    郭蕊, 丁选胜, 张晋萍, 等. 三种量表对老年晚期癌症患者抑郁状态评估一致性比较[J]. 实用预防医学, 2019, 26(6): 762-765. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-3110.2019.06.037

    Guo R, Ding X S, Zhang J P, et al. Comparison of the consistency of three scales in the evaluation of depression in elderly patients with advanced cancer[J]. Pract Prev Med, 2019, 26(6): 762-765. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-3110.2019.06.037
    [18]
    叶彤, 何月, 董丽. ICU患者专用压力性损伤风险评估表的研究进展[J]. 中国护理管理, 2017, 17(12): 1699-1703. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2017.12.027

    Ye T, He Y, Dong L. Research progress of special pressure ulcer scale for ICU patients[J]. Chin Nurs Manag, 2017, 17(12): 1699-1703. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2017.12.027
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(2)  / Tables(6)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (509) PDF downloads(16) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return