Comparison of four pressure ulcer risk assessment tools in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients are at a higher risk of developing pressure ulcers (PUs) than non-critically ill patients. Tools that aid in the early identification of those who are most at risk of PUs could help health care providers deliver early interventions and reduce unfavourable outcomes. AIMS: To compare the validity of four PU risk tools (the Braden scale, the Braden [ALB] scale, the CALCULATE, and the COMHON index) and to demonstrate the optimal cut-off points for each tool in critically ill patients. DESIGN: This was a prospective descriptive study. METHOD: This study was conducted in the intensive care units (ICUs) of a tertiary care hospital in Thailand from January to April 2019. Baseline characteristics were collected at admission to the ICUs. Skin assessment was evaluated every 24 hours. PU assessment scores were collected every 72 hours. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare the performance of the tests in predicting PUs. RESULTS: A total of 288 patients were recruited. The incidence of PUs was 11.1%. The Braden (ALB) scale performed the best based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (area under curve 0.74), followed by the CALCULATE (area under curve 0.71), the Braden (area under curve 0.67) scale, and the COMHON (area under curve 0.61) index. At the optimal cut-off point, the Braden (ALB) scale (≤13)) and the CALCULATE (≥3) were similar in terms of performance with an area under the curve of 0.69. CONCLUSION: The Braden (ALB) performed the best at predicting PU development in ICU patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The validity of all four PU risk tools was limited in Thai patients. The scales should thus be used in conjunction with clinical judgement to provide optimal outcomes. The development of better assessment tools for the prediction of PUs is required.

Development and validation of CAVE score in predicting presence of pressure ulcer in intensive care patients.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are one of the quality care indicators in nursing care. They are considered to primarily be preventable. Early identification of the patients most at risk particular for critically ill patients is crucial for providing prompt care. Several tools have been developed to support healthcare providers, but their validities are limited in Thailand. Development of tools with better performance is essential. AIMS: To develop and validate a PU risk assessment tool with good diagnostic properties in intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in ICUs of a tertiary care hospital, Thailand from January 2019 to April 2020. Baseline data were collected at admission to the ICUs. Skin assessment was evaluated every 24 h. Data were divided into two sets: model development and model validation. Creating a risk score which was derived from multivariate methods were performed. Youden index were used to determine the optimal cut-off point. Then, the other dataset was used to validate the risk score. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves was used to demonstrate the performance of the test. RESULTS: The study included 288 and 270 patients for development and validation models. The risk score consisted 4 clinical factors; presence of Cardiovascular disease, low serum Albumin, having Ventilated, and Edema (CAVE score). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.8 and a score at 2.5 was the best cut-off point. The AUC in the validation group was 0.6, age<60 years was 0.78, and age≥60 years was 0.57. CONCLUSION: The predictive validity of the CAVE score is limited but comparable to the existing tools in Thailand. However, it has a good diagnostic property in young patients. The CAVE score could be considered as an alternate screening tool in critical care setting particularly for young patients.