RESUMEN
AIM OF THE STUDY: This research is a descriptive and cross-sectional study aimed at examining the use of three different scales to assess the risk of pressure injury (PI) in surgical patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted between February 1 and July 1, 2022. The study included patients who had planned surgery in general surgery clinic. The sample size was 388 patients. Patients who agreed to participate in the study were asked to fill out the " Introductory Information Form " and perform a risk assessment using the Braden, Munro and 3S Scales. The statistics program IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 packaged software was used in the analyses of data. RESULTS: It is evident that the relationship between the scales and the diagnosis of PI, as well as the strength of this relationship, are statistically significant (p < 0.05). The Munro Scale exhibited the highest value of Phi value and validity coefficient c, indicating a stronger association with the diagnosis of PI, thus suggesting its greater effectiveness in discrimination. According to the validity coefficients found, it can be stated that the correct classification percentages for Munro, Braden, and 3S Scales were 91 %, 71 %, and 66 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that both the Braden, Munro, and 3S Scales can be used for PI risk assessment in surgical patients, but the Munro Scale exhibits superior predictive validity compared to the Braden and 3S Scales in terms of overall sensitivity and specificity.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: In this present study, we aimed to perform the reliability and validity analyses of the Turkish Form of Short Form-12 version 2 (SF-12v2) in different groups of patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After the permission for the validation study of the Turkish Form, Optum provided the authors the validly translated Turkish Form of SF-12v2. The study was carried out in rheumatological, psychiatric, and surgical wards of Manisa Celal Bayar University Hafsa Sultan Training and Research Center between September 2019 and June 2020. Taking possible dropouts into consideration, a total of 136 patients (67 males, 69 females; mean age: 43.5±14.4 years; range 19 to 82 years) constituted the study group. In addition to SF-12v2, for concurrent validity, Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) was used as the comparator instrument. RESULTS: In internal consistency, for the physical component summary score, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.80, and item-total score correlation coefficients were between 0.32 and 0.73. The Cronbach alpha coefficient of the mental component summary score was found to be 0.88 where the item-total correlation coefficients varied between 0.60 and 0.78. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a two-factor solution, representing mental and physical components. For criterion validity, convergent and discriminant validity analyses were performed using NHP with SF-12v2, and domains of SF-12v2 correlated well with the domains of NHP accordingly. In criterion validity, the psychiatric group had the lowest mean score in mental health, vitality, social functioning and role difficulties due to emotional problems, whereas the surgical group had the lowest mean score in bodily pain, role difficulties due to physical problems, and physical functioning. CONCLUSION: Our study results show that the Turkish form of SF-12v2 is valid and reliable both in clinical practice and clinical trials.
RESUMEN
AIM OF THE STUDY: To investigate the effect of support surface usage and positions on interface pressure during surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled experimental study was conducted between October 2018 and June 2019. The study included patients who had planned surgery in supine and prone positions. The sample size was 72 patients. Patients were assigned to three groups (gel support surface, viscoelastic support surface and standard operating table) according to the determined randomization table. During the surgery, the pressure in the patients' body was recorded. The statistics program IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 packaged software was used in the analyses of data. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the total body average interface pressure (mmHg) values between the supporting surfaces in the prone position. There was a statistically significant difference between the total body average interface pressure (mmHg) values between the support surfaces in the supine position, and the average interface pressure measured on the viscoelastic foam support surface was significantly lower than the gel support surface and the standard operating table. CONCLUSION: In the study, the use of viscoelastic foam support surface was found to be more effective than the use of a standard operating table and gel support surface. Viscoelastic foam support surface is recommended for patients at risk for pressure injury in the operating room.
