Reliability of the European pressure ulcer advisory panel classification system
Reliability of the European pressure ulcer advisory panel classification system
Aim. This paper reports a study examining the interrater and intrarater reliability of
classifying pressure ulcers according to the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel
classification system when using photographs of pressure ulcers and incontinence
lesions.
Background. Pressure ulcer classification is an essential tool for assessing ulcers and
their severity and determining which preventive or therapeutic action is needed.
Many classification systems are described in the literature. There are only a limited
number of studies that evaluate the interrater reliability of pressure ulcer grading
scales. The intrarater reliability is seldom studied.
Methods. The study consisted of two phases. In the first phase 56 photographs,
together with a random selection of nine photographs from the same set, were presented
to 473 nurses. In the second phase, the 56 photographs were presented twice
to 86 other nurses with an interval of one month and in a different order. All the
nurses were familiar with the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification.
They did not receive any additional training on classification, and were asked to
classify the lesions as normal skin, blanchable erythema, pressure ulcers (four grades,
European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification) or incontinence lesions.Results. In the first phase, the multirater-Kappa for the 473 participating nurses was
0.37 (P < 0.001). Non-blanchable erythema was often confused with blanchable
erythema and incontinence lesions. Also incontinence lesions were frequently not
correctly classified. The intrarater agreement was low (k = 0.38). In the second
phase, the interrater agreement was not significantly different in both sessions. The
intrarater agreement was 0.52.Conclusion. Both the interrater and intrarater reliability of the European Pressure
Ulcer Advisory Panel classification of lesion photographs by nurses was very low.
Differentiation between pressure ulcers and incontinence lesions seems to be difficult
189-198
Defloor, T.
4ca437de-5cb1-4d24-91d7-a388ee5839f2
Schoonhoven, Lisette
46a2705b-c657-409b-b9da-329d5b1b02de
Katrien, V.
6dc516d4-63fd-4751-8922-36ac1b4092ad
Weststrate, J.
7d95bb66-ed1a-40ec-b31a-34599e31bdf3
Myny, D.
a7aee596-2b72-48a2-9e89-769b57344017
April 2006
Defloor, T.
4ca437de-5cb1-4d24-91d7-a388ee5839f2
Schoonhoven, Lisette
46a2705b-c657-409b-b9da-329d5b1b02de
Katrien, V.
6dc516d4-63fd-4751-8922-36ac1b4092ad
Weststrate, J.
7d95bb66-ed1a-40ec-b31a-34599e31bdf3
Myny, D.
a7aee596-2b72-48a2-9e89-769b57344017
Defloor, T., Schoonhoven, Lisette, Katrien, V., Weststrate, J. and Myny, D.
(2006)
Reliability of the European pressure ulcer advisory panel classification system.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54 (2), .
(doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03801.x).
(PMID:16553705)
Abstract
Aim. This paper reports a study examining the interrater and intrarater reliability of
classifying pressure ulcers according to the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel
classification system when using photographs of pressure ulcers and incontinence
lesions.
Background. Pressure ulcer classification is an essential tool for assessing ulcers and
their severity and determining which preventive or therapeutic action is needed.
Many classification systems are described in the literature. There are only a limited
number of studies that evaluate the interrater reliability of pressure ulcer grading
scales. The intrarater reliability is seldom studied.
Methods. The study consisted of two phases. In the first phase 56 photographs,
together with a random selection of nine photographs from the same set, were presented
to 473 nurses. In the second phase, the 56 photographs were presented twice
to 86 other nurses with an interval of one month and in a different order. All the
nurses were familiar with the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification.
They did not receive any additional training on classification, and were asked to
classify the lesions as normal skin, blanchable erythema, pressure ulcers (four grades,
European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification) or incontinence lesions.Results. In the first phase, the multirater-Kappa for the 473 participating nurses was
0.37 (P < 0.001). Non-blanchable erythema was often confused with blanchable
erythema and incontinence lesions. Also incontinence lesions were frequently not
correctly classified. The intrarater agreement was low (k = 0.38). In the second
phase, the interrater agreement was not significantly different in both sessions. The
intrarater agreement was 0.52.Conclusion. Both the interrater and intrarater reliability of the European Pressure
Ulcer Advisory Panel classification of lesion photographs by nurses was very low.
Differentiation between pressure ulcers and incontinence lesions seems to be difficult
Text
Defloor_et_al_Reliability_of_European_PU_advisory_panel_classification_system.pdf
- Other
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy
More information
Published date: April 2006
Organisations:
Faculty of Health Sciences
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 339743
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/339743
ISSN: 0309-2402
PURE UUID: d561665f-4433-425d-a277-8e02de7db2ce
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 30 May 2012 10:10
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:41
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
T. Defloor
Author:
V. Katrien
Author:
J. Weststrate
Author:
D. Myny
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics