Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026

Mouse Model of Pressure Ulcers After Spinal Cord Injury
Published on: March 9, 2019
Creating a pressure ulcer prevention algorithm: systematic review and face validation
Lia van Rijswijk1, Janice M Beitz
1Holy Family University, School of Nursing and Allied Health Professions, Philadelphia, PA; Clinical Editor, Ostomy Wound Management;
None:
Pressure ulcer (PU) prevention is a care imperative supported by substantive evidence, but translating that knowledge into clinical decision-making at the point of care remains challenging. The purpose of this study was to create a succinct, evidence-based algorithm for inclusion in an existing industry-sponsored, evidence-based wound care program that will: 1) help clinicians assess and document overall patient PU risk; 2) help clinicians assess and address modifiable PU risk factors; and 3) guide clinicians toward an evidence-based protocol of care for patients with impaired skin integrity. First, using a systematic literature review and the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT), a one-page algorithm containing 26 distinct decision points/steps was developed with study quality ratings for all publications identified. Second, based on the quality-of-evidence ratings, the strength of each recommendation was obtained for each decision point/ step. Lastly, face validation and subsequent instrument revision based on analytic input occurred. Twelve (12) wound care experts were asked to review each decision step and rate its appropriateness/relevance on a 4-point Likert scale, where 1 = not relevant/appropriate and 4 = very relevant and appropriate. Average scores and a content validity index (CVI) were calculated for the algorithm and each individual component. Two components, the use of high-quality foam and medical grade sheepskin for at-risk patients, had sufficient evidence to receive an A strength of recommendation. However, the latter had a very low CVI (0.18). One other step, frequency of assessment for current or recent history of limited mobility (B strength of recommendation), had a low CVI (0.7). The overall literature-based level of evidence was good, but overall evidence gaps remain. The overall mean score was 3.6 (SD 0.8) with a CVI of 0.89 (out of 1). Both scores indicate strong face validity. This is the first PU prevention algorithm based on systematic literature review and face validation. Future content and construct validation is needed to refine the algorithm.
More Related Videos
09:37Application of Lucilia sericata Larvae in Debridement of Pressure Wounds in Outpatient Settings
Published on: December 4, 2021
06:45Development of a Benchtop Model for Evaluating the Compatibility of Wound Dressing Materials with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Systems
Published on: May 2, 2025
Related Concept Videos
The Scientific Method in Nursing Process
When using research findings to change practice, one must understand the process used to guide a study. The scientific method is a systematic, step-by-step process that supports the data's validity, reliability, and generalizability. As a result, findings can be...
Peripheral Artery Disease IV: Nursing Management
Healthcare Associated Infections II: Preventive Measures
The best practices for preventing healthcare-associated infections include hand hygiene, patient risk...
Pre-Procedural Guidelines for Assessing Blood Pressure
Diabetic Foot Ulcer
Data Validation
Nursing assessment guides are generally based on holistic models rather than medical...