Translation, adaptation, and validation of the Sunderland Scale and the Cubbin &amp; Jackson Revised Scale in Portuguese

Sousa, Bruno

doi:10.5935/0103-507x.20130021

Cited by 15 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The BRDs cover only part of these risk factors and is thus considered to be inadequate in the full risk assessment. Risk assessment scales that contain the other parameters and that are more suitable for the patients of our country are required, or the existing scales need serious modifications (29,31,(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49). Pressure ulcer development risk in patients treated in ICUs should be revised in coordination with healthcare workers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is Braden Scale Reliable and Sufficient to Evaluate the Risk of Pressure Ulcer Occurrence in Level 3 Intensive Care Unit Patients?

Gül¹,

Köprülü²,

Haspolat³

et al. 2016

JAREM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To prevent pressure ulcer, detecting risk factors and planning how to act with respect to patients provide to find solution. Thus, Braden Scale is the most common tool that is used in Turkey. This study aimed to measure Braden Scale effectiveness at detecting the risk groups of level 3 intensive care unit patients.Methods: This prospective, single-center study includes 206 level 3 intensive care unit patients whose risk factors were standardized as much as possible in the intensive care unit between January 2014 and May 2015. Routine clinical care was applied to the patients whose risk groups were determined by Braden Scale, and the patients were divided into two groups depending on the presence of a pressure ulcer before discharging from the hospital. Demographic findings, hospitalization duration, mental status, Apache II score, expected/actual mortality, blood albumin levels, and Braden Scale score were compared. Results:Comparison of the groups showed that patients' age, length of stay in intensive care unit, mental status, and blood albumin levels are significantly different between patients with and without pressure ulcers. Furthermore, scores of patients with pressure ulcers were not significantly different from those of patients without pressure ulcers. Data also illustrated that pressure ulcers occurred in no risk patients with the ratio of 7.14%; in low-risk patients with the ratio of 27.8%; in moderate-risk patients with the ratio of 29.73%; in high-risk patients with the ratio of 17.72%.Conclusion: Data evaluation demonstrates that Braden Scale is not effective to detect the risk factors, and parameters related to pressure ulcer development are not sufficiently represented by Braden Scale. Modification of an existing scale or a new risk assessment scale that includes all other risk parameters and that is more suitable for the patients of our country is required. (JAREM 2016; 6: 98-104)

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, some parameters that are reported as a risk factor by many authors are not included in this risk scale. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of publications disclosing that this risk assessment scale is not as reliable as claimed (24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Braden Scale Reliable and Sufficient to Evaluate the Risk of Pressure Ulcer Occurrence in Level 3 Intensive Care Unit Patients?

Gül¹,

Köprülü²,

Haspolat³

et al. 2016

JAREM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the evidence supporting the use of the Jackson/Cubbin scale for assessing PI risk in ICU patients remains limited and contradictory. Some studies have reported that the Jackson/Cubbin scale is reliable and valid for PI risk assessment of ICU patients (Kim, Lee, Lee, & Eom, ; Seongsook et al, ; Sousa, ). By contrast, Boyle and Green () used an unrevised version of the scale and reported a low predictive validity of the scale to assess PI risk; therefore, they did not recommend use of this scale.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Braden scale is commonly used in all clinical areas, including ICUs (Balzer et al, ; Kılıç Fırat & Sucudağ, ; Magnan & Maklebust, ; Seongsook et al, ) but it has been criticised on the grounds of limited content, low validity and low inter‐rater reliability (Cho & Noh, ; Cox, ; Kottner & Dassen, ). The Jackson/Cubbin scale was developed for use in ICU patients, but it has only been evaluated by a limited number of contradictory studies (Boyle & Green, ; Kim et al, ; Seongsook et al, ; Sousa, ; Soyer, ). The effect of various risk factors on the total scores of both scales was also investigated in the present study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pressure injury risk assessment in intensive care units: Comparison of the reliability and predictive validity of the Braden and Jackson/Cubbin scales

Adibelli

Korkmaz

2019

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and objectives To compare the reliability and predictive validity of the Braden and Jackson/Cubbin PI risk assessment scales in intensive care unit patients. Background Risk assessment with a standardised tool is the usual intervention for preventing pressure injury. Therefore, tools used to assess pressure injury risk should be valid and reliable for the designated patient population. Design A prospective and cross‐sectional study adheres to the STARD guideline. Methods This study was conducted between November 2017–April 2018 in the intensive care units of a tertiary level university hospital in Turkey. The study sample consisted of 176 patients admitted to three intensive care units. Risk assessment was performed once daily with the Braden scale, followed immediately with the Jackson/Cubbin scale. Risk assessment was terminated on the day of pressure injury development or upon patient discharge from the intensive care unit. Each patient's final risk assessment was considered in the data analysis. Results The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the Jackson/Cubbin and Braden scales was .78 and .85, respectively. The predictive validity of the Jackson/Cubbin scale was confirmed by a sensitivity of .87, specificity of .84, positive predictive value of .47 and negative predictive value of .97. These values for the Braden scale were .95, .75, .38 and .99, respectively. Conclusion Both the Jackson/Cubbin and Braden scales are reliable and valid scales for pressure injury risk assessment in intensive care unit patients. However, the predictive ability to determine patients at risk and not at risk for pressure injury was better for the Jackson/Cubbin scale than for the Braden scale. Relevance to clinical practice Both scales are reliable and valid scales for pressure injury risk assessment. Jackson/Cubbin scale's discriminative ability (between the patients at pressure injury risk and not at pressure injury risk) was better.

show abstract

“…However, there has been no research about whether and how information from EMRs structurally matches with the items of the Cubbin and Jackson scale; therefore, more validation studies of the Cubbin and Jackson scale are needed to support its further use [14]. To address this issue, we first examined the predictive validity of the Cubbin and Jackson scale on pressure ulcer development in ICU patients, and then evaluated the reusability of EMR data for the Cubbin and Jackson scale.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reusability of EMR Data for Applying Cubbin and Jackson Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale in Critical Care Patients

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe purposes of this study were to examine the predictive validity of the Cubbin and Jackson pressure ulcer risk assessment scale for the development of pressure ulcers in intensive care unit (ICU) patients retrospectively and to evaluate the reusability of Electronic Medical Records (EMR) data.MethodsA retrospective design was used to examine 829 cases admitted to four ICUs in a tertiary care hospital from May 2010 to April 2011. Patients who were without pressure ulcers at admission to ICU, 18 years or older, and had stayed in ICU for 24 hours or longer were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated.ResultsThe reported incidence rate of pressure ulcers among the study subjects was 14.2%. At the cut-off score of 24 of the Cubbin and Jackson scale, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and AUC were 72.0%, 68.8%, 27.7%, 93.7%, and 0.76, respectively. Eight items out 10 of the Cubbin and Jackson scale were readily available in the EMR data.ConclusionsThe Cubbin and Jackson scale performed slightly better than the Braden scale to predict pressure ulcer development. Eight items of the Cubbin and Jackson scale except mobility and hygiene can be extracted from the EMR, which initially demonstrated the reusability of EMR data for pressure ulcer risk assessment. If the Cubbin and Jackson scale is a part of the EMR assessment form, it would help nurses perform tasks to effectively prevent pressure ulcers with an EMR alert for high-risk patients.

show abstract

Translation, adaptation, and validation of the Sunderland Scale and the Cubbin & Jackson Revised Scale in Portuguese

Cited by 15 publications

References 19 publications

Is Braden Scale Reliable and Sufficient to Evaluate the Risk of Pressure Ulcer Occurrence in Level 3 Intensive Care Unit Patients?

Is Braden Scale Reliable and Sufficient to Evaluate the Risk of Pressure Ulcer Occurrence in Level 3 Intensive Care Unit Patients?

Pressure injury risk assessment in intensive care units: Comparison of the reliability and predictive validity of the Braden and Jackson/Cubbin scales

Reusability of EMR Data for Applying Cubbin and Jackson Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale in Critical Care Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About