Moore ZE, Patton D, et al.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Date of publication 2019 Jan 31;volume 1():CD006471.
1. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 31;1:CD006471. doi:
10.1002/14651858.CD006471.pub4.
Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers.
Moore ZE(1), Patton D.
Author information:
(1)School of Nursing & Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St.
Stephen's Green, Dublin, Ireland, D2.
BACKGROUND: Use of pressure ulcer risk assessment tools or scales is a component
of the assessment process used to identify individuals at risk of developing a
pressure ulcer. Use of a risk assessment tool is recommended by many
international pressure ulcer prevention guidelines, however it is not known
whether using a risk assessment tool makes a difference to patient outcomes. We
conducted a review to provide a summary of the evidence pertaining to pressure
ulcer risk assessment in clinical practice, and this is the third update of this
review.
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether using structured and systematic pressure ulcer risk
assessment tools, in any healthcare setting, reduces the incidence of pressure
ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS: In February 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised
Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid
MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; and
EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and
unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as
well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify
additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of
publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of
structured and systematic pressure ulcer risk assessment tools with no structured
pressure ulcer risk assessment, or with unaided clinical judgement, or RCTs
comparing the use of different structured pressure ulcer risk assessment tools.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study
selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and GRADE assessment of the
certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies in this review (1,487 participants). We
identified no new trials for this latest update.Both studies were undertaken in
acute-care hospitals. In one study, patients were eligible if they had a Braden
score of 18 or less. In the second study all admitted patients were eligible for
inclusion, once they were expected to have a hospital stay of more than three
days and they had been in hospital for no more than 24 hours before baseline
assessment took place. In the first study, most of the participants were medical
patients; no information on age or gender distribution was provided. In the
second study, 50.3% (619) of the participants were male, with a mean age of 62.6
years (standard deviation (SD): 19.3), and 15.4% (190) were admitted to oncology
wards.The two included studies were three-armed studies. In the first study the
three groups were: Braden risk assessment tool and training (n = 74), clinical
judgement and training (n = 76) and clinical judgement alone (n = 106); follow-up
was eight weeks. In the second study the three groups were: Waterlow risk
assessment tool (n = 411), clinical judgement (n = 410) and Ramstadius risk
assessment tool (n = 410); follow-up was four days. Both studies reported the
primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence and one study also reported the
secondary outcome, severity of new pressure ulcers.We are uncertain whether use
of the Braden risk assessment tool and training makes any difference to pressure
ulcer incidence, compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement and
training (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.77; 150
participants), or compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement alone (RR
1.43, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.68; 180 participants). We assessed the certainty of the
evidence as very low (downgraded twice for study limitations and twice for
imprecision).Risk assessment using the Waterlow tool may make little or no
difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or to pressure ulcer severity, when
compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement (pressure ulcers of all
stages: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.81; 821 participants; stage 1 pressure ulcers:
RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.90; 821 participants; stage 2 pressure ulcers: RR 1.25,
95% CI 0.50 to 3.13; 821 participants), or risk assessment using the Ramstadius
tool (pressure ulcers of all stages: RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.39; 821
participants; stage 1 pressure ulcers: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.15; 821
participants; stage 2 pressure ulcers: RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.79 to 7.89; 821
participants). Similarily, risk assessment using the Ramstadius tool may make
little or no difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or to pressure ulcer
severity, when compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement (pressure
ulcers of all stages: RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 820 participants; stage 1
pressure ulcers: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.68; 820 participants; stage 2 pressure
ulcers: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.65; 820 participants). We assessed the
certainty of the evidence as low (downgraded once for study limitations and once
for imprecision).The studies did not report the secondary outcomes of time to
ulcer development, or pressure ulcer prevalence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified two studies which evaluated the effect of
risk assessment on pressure ulcer incidence. Based on evidence from one study, we
are uncertain whether risk assessment using the Braden tool makes any difference
to pressure ulcer incidence, compared with training and risk assessment using
clinical judgement, or risk assessment using clinical judgement alone. Risk
assessment using the Waterlow tool, or the Ramstadius tool may make little or no
difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or severity, compared with clinical
judgement. The low, or very low certainty of evidence available from the included
studies is not reliable enough to suggest that the use of structured and
systematic pressure ulcer risk assessment tools reduces the incidence, or
severity of pressure ulcers.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006471.pub4
PMID: 30702158
