The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Inter-rater reliability of the EPUAP pressure ulcer classification system using photographs

Inter-rater reliability of the EPUAP pressure ulcer classification system using photographs
Inter-rater reliability of the EPUAP pressure ulcer classification system using photographs
Background. Many classification systems for grading pressure ulcers are discussed in the literature. Correct identification and classification of a pressure ulcer is important for accurate reporting of the magnitude of the problem, and for timely prevention. The reliability of pressure ulcer classification systems has rarely been tested.
Aims and objectives. The purpose of this paper is to examine the inter-rater reliability of classifying pressure ulcers according to the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system when using pressure ulcer photographs.Design. Survey was among pressure ulcer experts.
Methods. Fifty-six photographs were presented to 44 pressure ulcer experts. The experts classified the lesions as normal skin, blanchable erythema, pressure ulcer (four grades) or incontinence lesion. Inter-rater reliability was calculated.
Results. The multirater-Kappa for the entire group of experts was 0.80 (P < 0.001).
Various groups of experts obtained comparable results. Differences in classifications are mainly limited to 1 degree of difference. Incontinence lesions are most often confused with grade 2 (blisters) and grade 3 pressure ulcers (superficial pressure ulcers).
Conclusions. The inter-rater reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification appears to be good for the assessment of photographs by experts. The difference between an incontinence lesion and a blister or a superficial pressure ulcer does not always seem clear.
Relevance to clinical practice. The ability to determine correctly whether a lesion is a pressure ulcer lesion is important to assess the effectiveness of preventive measures. In addition, the ability to make a correct distinction between pressure ulcers and incontinence lesions is important as they require different preventive measures. A faulty classification leads to mistaken measures and negative results. Photographs can be used as a practice instrument to learn to discern pressure ulcers from incontinence lesions and to get to know the different grades of pressure ulcers. The Pressure Ulcer Classification software package has been developed to facilitate learning.
0962-1067
952-959
Defloor, T.
4ca437de-5cb1-4d24-91d7-a388ee5839f2
Schoonhoven, Lisette
46a2705b-c657-409b-b9da-329d5b1b02de
Defloor, T.
4ca437de-5cb1-4d24-91d7-a388ee5839f2
Schoonhoven, Lisette
46a2705b-c657-409b-b9da-329d5b1b02de

Defloor, T. and Schoonhoven, Lisette (2004) Inter-rater reliability of the EPUAP pressure ulcer classification system using photographs. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 13 (8), 952-959. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00974.x). (PMID:15533101)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background. Many classification systems for grading pressure ulcers are discussed in the literature. Correct identification and classification of a pressure ulcer is important for accurate reporting of the magnitude of the problem, and for timely prevention. The reliability of pressure ulcer classification systems has rarely been tested.
Aims and objectives. The purpose of this paper is to examine the inter-rater reliability of classifying pressure ulcers according to the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system when using pressure ulcer photographs.Design. Survey was among pressure ulcer experts.
Methods. Fifty-six photographs were presented to 44 pressure ulcer experts. The experts classified the lesions as normal skin, blanchable erythema, pressure ulcer (four grades) or incontinence lesion. Inter-rater reliability was calculated.
Results. The multirater-Kappa for the entire group of experts was 0.80 (P < 0.001).
Various groups of experts obtained comparable results. Differences in classifications are mainly limited to 1 degree of difference. Incontinence lesions are most often confused with grade 2 (blisters) and grade 3 pressure ulcers (superficial pressure ulcers).
Conclusions. The inter-rater reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification appears to be good for the assessment of photographs by experts. The difference between an incontinence lesion and a blister or a superficial pressure ulcer does not always seem clear.
Relevance to clinical practice. The ability to determine correctly whether a lesion is a pressure ulcer lesion is important to assess the effectiveness of preventive measures. In addition, the ability to make a correct distinction between pressure ulcers and incontinence lesions is important as they require different preventive measures. A faulty classification leads to mistaken measures and negative results. Photographs can be used as a practice instrument to learn to discern pressure ulcers from incontinence lesions and to get to know the different grades of pressure ulcers. The Pressure Ulcer Classification software package has been developed to facilitate learning.

Text
Defloor_Schoonhoven_Inter_rater_reliability_EPUAP_PU_classification_system_photographs.pdf - Other
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy

More information

Published date: November 2004
Organisations: Faculty of Health Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 339752
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/339752
ISSN: 0962-1067
PURE UUID: 35a29682-391f-4277-9b52-69e136b68997
ORCID for Lisette Schoonhoven: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-7129-3766

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 30 May 2012 10:40
Last modified: 15 Jun 2021 01:43

Export record

Altmetrics

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

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×