Braden scale (ALB) for assessing pressure ulcer risk in hospital patients: A validity and reliability study

Chen, Honglin; Cao, Yingjuan; Zhang, Wei; Wang, Jing; Huai, Bao-Sha

doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2016.12.001

Cited by 31 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All of our patients were classified as a very highrisk score of presenting pressure ulcers in the Braden scale and therefore needed an extra care. Regarding nutritional status, we used serum albumin and prealbumin as objective criteria for nutritional assessment 22 , demonstrating that prealbumin value was significantly higher in the case group but with no statistical differences in regards serum albumin levels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prone position pressure sores in the COVID-19 pandemic: The Madrid experience

Ibarra

Rivera

Fernández-Ibarburu

et al. 2021

Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prone position pressure sores in the COVID-19 pandemic: The Madrid experience

Ibarra

Rivera

Fernández-Ibarburu

et al. 2021

Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It was piloted, revised, and implemented hospital‐wide with education of the staff provided by the hospital's nurse educators. With a predictive validity of the modified Braden Scale found to be .72 and its higher interrater reliability, it was deemed appropriate for the patient population in this community hospital (Chen, Cao, Zhang, Wang, & Huai, ; Park, Lee, & Kwon, ).…”

Section: Creation and Implementation Of A Pressure Ulcer Prevention Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Healthy Skin Wins: A Glowing Pressure Ulcer Prevention Program That Can Guide Evidence‐Based Practice

Martin

Albensi²,

Haute

et al. 2017

Worldviews Ev Based Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…focuses on factors related to pressure ulcer risk (i.e., Braden Score <19), instead of actual pressure ulcers because of the low prevalence of pressure ulcers in the sample, which may result in bias. By contrast, our recent study (Chen et al., ) which designed a prospective study for reliability analysis among participants who were at risk of developing pressure ulcers made a comparatively reliable result. Furthermore, we asked experienced nurses to conduct Braden scale and Braden (ALB) scale for each included patient, which could bring out a contrast between the two groups (Braden scale vs Braden (ALB) scale).…”

mentioning

confidence: 63%

“…Third, we have already attempted to find higher reliable quantitative items for assessing pressure ulcer risk. We modified the Braden scale (ALB) using serum albumin to replace nutrition subscale aimed to assess its validity and reliability among inpatients (Chen, Cao, Zhang, Wang, & Huai, ). Finally, we found a comparatively satisfying result that the inter‐rater reliability of the Braden (ALB) scale was significantly higher than the original Braden scale, which supports the view of this article written by Skogestad et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Standard laboratory tests are recommended as supplements to the Braden scale for pressure ulcer risk

Zha

Chen

2018

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We read the article with the great interest written by Skogestad et al. (2017) on the supplements to the Braden scale for pressure ulcer risk among medical inpatients. In this prospective, cross-sectional survey, which involved 328 medical inpatients and aimed to describe the prevalence of pressure ulcers and pressure ulcer risk in medical patients and to detect possible risk factors, including sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, symptom experience and laboratory blood values, the authors found that patient-reported symptoms and standard laboratory results served as supplemental indicators of pressure ulcer risk may improve identification of patients at risk of pressure ulcer. We agree with the authors' viewpoint that standard laboratory indexes should be used as supplemental indicators of pressure ulcer risk. From the article, we know that with regard to laboratory blood results, pressure ulcer risk was associated with lower levels of haemoglobin (p = .012) and albumin (p < .001) and higher levels of C-reactive protein (p < .001).The reasons why we agree with the authors are listed as follow.First, inter-rater reliability in the pressure ulcer risk assessment scales is not good. In our prior study, which aimed to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of Braden scale, Norton scale and Waterlow scale for pressure ulcer risk assessment (Wang et al., 2015), we found that the terms among the three scales, such as moisture, physical condition and skin type were not defined by a definite criterion so that the scales were often used to assess pressure ulcer risk by different nurses making different results in same patients, which indicated low inter-rater reliability. Therefore, we suggested that some studies which are expected to find out high reliable quantitative items to replace these ambiguous items were needed. In fact, although Braden scale is one of the three best known and most widely used scales served as a pressure ulcer risk screening tool, some scholars recommended that existing three widely used pressure ulcer risk assessment scales need to be evaluated and a new or modified pressure ulcer risk scale should be developed (Satekova, Ziakova, & Zelenikova, 2017).Second, it was proved by our prior study that Braden scale had low calibration power in predicting PU formation (Chen, Cao, Wang, & Huai, 2016). In other words, Braden scale cannot predict the occurrence of pressure ulcer in a satisfactory manner. Our results in this study indicated that other predictive indexes, especially objective indexes, should be added to Braden scale, even other scales for assessing pressure ulcer risk, which was consistent with this article.Third, we have already attempted to find higher reliable quantitative items for assessing pressure ulcer risk. We modified the Braden scale (ALB) using serum albumin to replace nutrition subscale aimed to assess its validity and reliability among inpatients (Chen, Cao, Zhang, Wang, & Huai, 2017). Finally, we found a comparatively satisfying result that the inter-rater reliability of th...

show abstract

Braden scale (ALB) for assessing pressure ulcer risk in hospital patients: A validity and reliability study

Cited by 31 publications

References 19 publications

Prone position pressure sores in the COVID-19 pandemic: The Madrid experience

Prone position pressure sores in the COVID-19 pandemic: The Madrid experience

Healthy Skin Wins: A Glowing Pressure Ulcer Prevention Program That Can Guide Evidence‐Based Practice

Standard laboratory tests are recommended as supplements to the Braden scale for pressure ulcer risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About