Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2025
Objective Nociceptive Assessment in Ventilated ICU Patients: A Feasibility Study Using Pupillometry and the Nociceptive Flexion Reflex
Published on: July 4, 2018
Pressure injury risk assessment and prescription of preventative interventions using a structured tool versus
Paul Fulbrook1,2,3, Josephine Lovegrove2,4,5, Saroeun Ven1,2
1School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia.
Aim:
To assess agreement of pressure injury risk level and differences in preventative intervention prescription between nurses using a structured risk assessment tool compared with clinical judgement.
Design:
Interrater agreement study.
Methods:
Data were collected from November 2019 to December 2022. Paired nurse-assessors were allocated randomly to independently assess pressure injury risk using a structured tool (incorporating the Waterlow Score), or clinical judgement; then prescribe preventative interventions. Assessments were conducted on 150 acute patient participants in a general tertiary hospital. Agreement of risk level was analysed using absolute agreement proportions, weighted kappa and prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa.
Results:
Ninety-four nurse assessors participated. Absolute agreement of not-at-risk versus at-risk-any-level was substantial, but absolute agreement of risk-level was only fair. Clinical judgement assessors tended to underestimate risk. Where risk level was agreed, prescribed intervention frequencies were similar, although structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions mandated by standard care, while clinical judgement assessors prescribed more additional/optional interventions. Structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions targeted at lower-risk patients, whereas assessors using clinical judgement prescribed more interventions targeted at higher-risk patients.
Conclusion:
There were clear differences in pressure injury risk-level assessment between nurses using the two methods, with important differences in intervention prescription frequencies found. Further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk, with emphasis on the impact of risk assessments on subsequent preventative intervention implementation.
Impact:
The results of this study are important for clinical practice as they demonstrate the influence of using a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. Whilst further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk and prescribe interventions, our findings do not support a change in practice that would exclude the use of a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool.
Reporting Method:
This study adhered to the GRRAS reporting guideline.
Patient/Public Contribution:
No patient or public involvement in this study.
Implications For The Profession And/Or Patient Care:
Educators and researchers can use the findings to guide teaching about pressure injury risk assessment and preventative intervention and to direct future studies. For clinical nurses and patients, a change in clinical practice that would exclude the use of a structured risk assessment tool is not recommended and further work is needed to validate the role of clinical judgement to assess risk and its impact on preventative intervention.
Related Concept Videos
01:10Pre-Procedural Guidelines for Assessing Blood Pressure
01:21Methods of Documentation III: PIE
01:22Healthcare Associated Infections II: Preventive Measures
The best practices for preventing healthcare-associated infections include hand hygiene, patient risk...
01:25Assessment of apical radial pulse
The A-R pulse assessment involves simultaneous evaluation of the apical and radial pulses. When the apical and radial pulse rates vary, this assessment helps identify a pulse deficit.
Pre-Procedural Preparation
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:14SBAR II: Application of SBAR
SBAR Report from a Nurse to a Health Care Provider
S: "Hello, Dr. Smith. This is Jane, RN, from the Med Surg unit. I am calling to tell you about Ms. White in Room 210, who is experiencing increased pain and redness at her incision site. Her recent...