Validity of the Walsall Community Pressure Sore Risk Calculator

Abstract

The Walsall Community Risk Score Calculator has been in use for the past 8 years. Outcomes from a trust-wide prevalence audit identified that this assessment tool may benefit from re-evaluation. This study examined the tool's validity and reliability and has resulted in some changes being made to the original score. To assess validity, a cross-sectional study of 720 patients was undertaken looking at the incidence of pressure damage, despite intervention, over a 12-week period. Using logistic regression analysis new weightings for each category were developed. This also led to the removal of one factor (bodily pain) which did not appear to contribute to increased risk of pressure damage. The updated score shows an improved prediction of pressure sore development compared with the existing method.

Exploring the Role of Pain as an Early Indicator for Individuals at Risk of Pressure Ulcer Development: A Systematic Review

“…Then, following a review of the full papers of the remaining citations, four were rejected for a non‐eligible study design and non‐eligible participants (Carlsson & Gunningberg, 2017; Chiari et al, 2017; January, Zebracki, Czworniak, Chlan, & Vogel, 2015; Kim, Lyon, Weaver, Keenan, & Stechmiller, 2019). Finally, eight articles were deemed relevant (Anrys, Tiggelen, Verhaeghe, Hecke, & Beeckman, 2019; Briggs et al, 2013; Chaloner & Franks, 2000; Ham, Schoonhoven, Schuurmans, & Leenen, 2016; McGinnis et al, 2014; Nilsson, 2013; Skogestad et al, 2017; Smith et al, 2017). An overview of the included studies is provided in Table S1.…”

“…The studies were conducted between 2000 and 2019, with 75% ( n = 6) employing a cross‐sectional design (Briggs et al, 2013; Chaloner & Franks, 2000; Ham et al, 2016; McGinnis et al, 2014; Nilsson, 2013; Skogestad et al, 2017) and 25% ( n = 2) employing a prospective cohort study design (Anrys et al, 2019; Smith et al, 2017). The geographical location of the studies varied between the United Kingdom (Briggs et al, 2013; Chaloner & Franks, 2000; McGinnis et al, 2014; Smith et al, 2017), Belgium (Anrys et al, 2019), Sweden (Nilsson, 2013), Norway (Skogestad et al, 2017), and the Netherlands (Ham et al, 2016). The study settings included nursing homes (Anrys et al, 2019), hospitals (Briggs et al, 2013; Ham et al, 2016; Nilsson, 2013; Skogestad et al, 2017; Smith et al, 2017), and community settings (Chaloner & Franks, 2000; McGinnis et al, 2014; Smith et al, 2017).…”

Norton, Waterlow and Braden scores: a review of the literature and a comparison between the scores and clinical judgement

“…How many factors are used and how these are added has been a subject of few studies. One large study evaluated the Walsall score and pain was taken out as a factor as it did not seem to increase risk (Chaloner & Franks 2000). Other studies have shown removing sub-scores from Waterlow allow similar or better prediction of incidence, but the subscores removed are different for various client groups (Anthony et al 1998(Anthony et al ,2000.…”

The Use of Mathematical Analysis in the Nursing Bed Design Evaluation

“…Boorman et al [10] assessed the value of a "Clinitron" air-fluidized bed in the setting of a general plastic surgery unit by using pressure sensor data in 1981. Milward et al [11] put forward the Walsall scoring system, which was designed with community patients in mind; it was later improved by Chaloner and Franks [12]. A scoring system is typically used to evaluate the medical system for both hospital and community staff.…”