‘The definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com .' Copyright Blackwell PublishingPeer reviewe

Bates-Jensen B.M

Bennett R.G.

Black J.

Bours G.J.

Collier M.

Dealey C.

Derre B.

Donnelly J.

European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP)

Fletcher J.

Guggenmoos-Holzmann I.

Maklebust J.

National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel.

Polit D.F.

Russell L.

Sharp A.

Witkowski J.A.

Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nurses Society (WOCN)

Journal of Advanced Nursing

English

Contains fulltext :
                  52214.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)AIM: This paper is a report of a study of the inter-observer reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel pressure ulcer classification system and of the differential diagnosis between moisture lesions and pressure ulcers. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcer classification is a valuable tool to provide a common description of ulcer severity for the purposes of clinical practice, audit and research. Despite everyday use of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel system, its reliability has been evaluated in only a limited number of studies. METHODS: A survey was carried out between September 2005 and February 2006 with a convenience sample of 1452 nurses from five European countries. Respondents classified 20 validated photographs as normal skin, blanchable erythema, pressure ulcers (four grades), moisture lesion or combined lesion. The nurses were familiar with the use of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification scale. RESULTS: Pressure ulcers were often classified erroneously (kappa = 0.33) and only a minority of nurses reached a substantial level of agreement. Grade 3 lesions were regularly classified as grade 2. Non-blanchable erythema was frequently assessed incorrectly as blanchable erythema. Furthermore, the differential diagnosis between moisture lesions and pressure ulcers appeared to be complicated. CONCLUSION: Inter-observer reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system was low. Evaluation thus needs to focus on both the clarity and complexity of the system. Definitions and unambiguous descriptions of pressure ulcer grades and the distinction between moisture lesions will probably enhance clarity. To simplify the current classification system, a reduction in the number of grades is suggested

Beeckman, D.

Schoonhoven, L.

Fletcher, J.

Furtado, K.

Gunningberg, L.

Heyman, H.

Lindholm, C.

Paquay, L.

Verdu, J.

Defloor, T.

Radboud Repository

EPUAP classification system for pressure ulcers: European reliability study.

AIM: This paper is a report of a study of the inter-observer reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel pressure ulcer classification system and of the differential diagnosis between moisture lesions and pressure ulcers. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcer classification is a valuable tool to provide a common description of ulcer severity for the purposes of clinical practice, audit and research. Despite everyday use of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel system, its reliability has been evaluated in only a limited number of studies. METHODS: A survey was carried out between September 2005 and February 2006 with a convenience sample of 1452 nurses from five European countries. Respondents classified 20 validated photographs as normal skin, blanchable erythema, pressure ulcers (four grades), moisture lesion or combined lesion. The nurses were familiar with the use of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification scale. RESULTS: Pressure ulcers were often classified erroneously (kappa = 0.33) and only a minority of nurses reached a substantial level of agreement. Grade 3 lesions were regularly classified as grade 2. Non-blanchable erythema was frequently assessed incorrectly as blanchable erythema. Furthermore, the differential diagnosis between moisture lesions and pressure ulcers appeared to be complicated. CONCLUSION: Inter-observer reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system was low. Evaluation thus needs to focus on both the clarity and complexity of the system. Definitions and unambiguous descriptions of pressure ulcer grades and the distinction between moisture lesions will probably enhance clarity. To simplify the current classification system, a reduction in the number of grades is suggested

NARCIS 

AIM: This paper is a report of a study of the inter-observer reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel pressure ulcer classification system and of the differential diagnosis between moisture lesions and pressure ulcers. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcer classification is a valuable tool to provide a common description of ulcer severity for the purposes of clinical practice, audit and research. Despite everyday use of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel system, its reliability has been evaluated in only a limited number of studies. METHODS: A survey was carried out between September 2005 and February 2006 with a convenience sample of 1452 nurses from five European countries. Respondents classified 20 validated photographs as normal skin, blanchable erythema, pressure ulcers (four grades), moisture lesion or combined lesion. The nurses were familiar with the use of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification scale. RESULTS: Pressure ulcers were often classified erroneously (kappa = 0.33) and only a minority of nurses reached a substantial level of agreement. Grade 3 lesions were regularly classified as grade 2. Non-blanchable erythema was frequently assessed incorrectly as blanchable erythema. Furthermore, the differential diagnosis between moisture lesions and pressure ulcers appeared to be complicated. CONCLUSION: Inter-observer reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system was low. Evaluation thus needs to focus on both the clarity and complexity of the system. Definitions and unambiguous descriptions of pressure ulcer grades and the distinction between moisture lesions will probably enhance clarity. To simplify the current classification system, a reduction in the number of grades is suggested.</p

Gunningberg, Lena,

Lindolm, C.

Verdú, J.

Swepub

EPUAP classification system for pressure ulcers : European reliability study

EPUAP classification system for pressure ulcers: European reliability studyAim. This paper is a report of a study of the inter-observer reliability of theEuropean Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel pressure ulcer classification system and ofthe differential diagnosis between moisture lesions and pressure ulcers.Background. Pressure ulcer classification is a valuable tool to provide a commondescription of ulcer severity for the purposes of clinical practice, audit and research.Despite everyday use of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel system, itsreliability has been evaluated in only a limited number of studies.Methods. Asurvey was carried out between September 2005 and February 2006 witha convenience sample of 1452 nurses from five European countries. Respondentsclassified 20 validated photographs as normal skin, blanchable erythema, pressureulcers (four grades), moisture lesion or combined lesion. The nurses were familiarwith the use of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification scale.Results. Pressure ulcers were often classified erroneously (j = 0Æ33) and only aminority of nurses reached a substantial level of agreement. Grade 3 lesions wereregularly classified as grade 2. Non-blanchable erythema was frequently assessedincorrectly as blanchable erythema. Furthermore, the differential diagnosis betweenmoisture lesions and pressure ulcers appeared to be complicated.Conclusion. Inter-observer reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panelclassification system was low. Evaluation thus needs to focus on both the clarity andcomplexity of the system. Definitions and unambiguous descriptions of pressure ulcergrades and the distinction between moisture lesions will probably enhance clarity. Tosimplify the current classification system, a reduction in the number of grades issuggested

Southampton (e-Prints Soton)

EPUAP classification system for pressure ulcers: European reliability study

Crossref

Aim. This paper is a report of a study of the inter-observer reliability of the
European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel pressure ulcer classification system and of
the differential diagnosis between moisture lesions and pressure ulcers.
Background. Pressure ulcer classification is a valuable tool to provide a common
description of ulcer severity for the purposes of clinical practice, audit and research.
Despite everyday use of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel system, its
reliability has been evaluated in only a limited number of studies.
Methods. Asurvey was carried out between September 2005 and February 2006 with
a convenience sample of 1452 nurses from five European countries. Respondents
classified 20 validated photographs as normal skin, blanchable erythema, pressure
ulcers (four grades), moisture lesion or combined lesion. The nurses were familiar
with the use of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification scale.
Results. Pressure ulcers were often classified erroneously (j = 0Æ33) and only a
minority of nurses reached a substantial level of agreement. Grade 3 lesions were
regularly classified as grade 2. Non-blanchable erythema was frequently assessed
incorrectly as blanchable erythema. Furthermore, the differential diagnosis between
moisture lesions and pressure ulcers appeared to be complicated.
Conclusion. Inter-observer reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel
classification system was low. Evaluation thus needs to focus on both the clarity and
complexity of the system. Definitions and unambiguous descriptions of pressure ulcer
grades and the distinction between moisture lesions will probably enhance clarity. To
simplify the current classification system, a reduction in the number of grades is
suggested.status: publishe

Beeckman, D

Schoonhoven, L

Fletcher, J

Furtado, K

Gunningberg, L

Heyman, H

Lindcolm, C

Paquay, Louis

Verdu, J

Defloor, T

Lirias

Aim. This paper is a report of a study of the inter-observer reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel pressure ulcer classification system and of the differential diagnosis between moisture lesions and pressure ulcers. Background. Pressure ulcer classification is a valuable tool to provide a common description of ulcer severity for the purposes of clinical practice, audit and research. Despite everyday use of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel system, its reliability has been evaluated in only a limited number of studies. Methods. A survey was carried out between September 2005 and February 2006 with a convenience sample of 1452 nurses from five European countries. Respondents classified 20 validated photographs as normal skin, blanchable erythema, pressure ulcers (four grades), moisture lesion or combined lesion. The nurses were familiar with the use of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification scale. Results. Pressure ulcers were often classified erroneously (kappa =0.33) and only a minority of nurses reached a substantial level of agreement. Grade 3 lesions were regularly classified as grade 2. Non-blanchable erythema was frequently assessed incorrectly as blanchable erythema. Furthermore, the differential diagnosis between moisture lesions and pressure ulcers appeared to be complicated. Conclusion. Inter-observer reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system was low. Evaluation thus needs to focus on both the clarity and complexity of the system. Definitions and unambiguous descriptions of pressure ulcer grades and the distinction between moisture lesions will probably enhance clarity. To simplify the current classification system, a reduction in the number of grades is suggested

Beeckman, Dimitri,

Schoonhoven, Lisette,

Fletcher, Jacqui,

Furtado, Kátia,

Heyman, Hilde,

Lindholm, Christina,

Paquay, Louis,

Verdú, José,

Defloor, Tom,

EPUAP classification system for pressure ulcers european reliability study

Beeckman, Dimitri

SCHOONHOVEN, L

FLETCHER, J

FURTADO, K

GUNNINGBERG, L

HEYMAN, H

LINDHOLM, C

PAQUAY, L

VERDU, J

Defloor, Tom

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

and Continence Nurses Society (WOCN). Guideline for prevention and management of pressure ulcers. Glenview (IL): Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nurses Society (WOCN);

Blanching and non-blanching hyperaemia.

from http://www.npuap.org/documents/PU_Definition_Stages.pdf

Histopathology of the decubitus ulcer.

How accurate are pressure ulcer grades? An image-based survey of nurse performance.

How reliable are chance-corrected measures of agreement?

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

Interobserver variation in the RedYellow-Black wound classification system. Ugeskrift for laeger,

Interpretation of pressure-sore prevalence.

Low airloss hydrotherapy versus standard care for incontinent hospitalized patients.

MEASURE: A proposed assessment framework for developing best practice recommendations for wound assessment. Wound repair and regeneration,

National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Pressure ulcers: defnitions and stages.

Non-blanchable erythema as an indicator for the need for pressure ulcer prevention: a randomised controlled trial.

Nursing Research: Principles and Methods.

Pressure sores: classification and management.

Pressure ulcer assessment and documentation: The pressure sore status tool.

Pressure Ulcer Classification. In

Pressure ulcer grading tools: how reliable are they?

Pressure ulcer risk factors among hospitalized patients with activity limitation.

Pressure ulcers: guidelines for prevention and Nursing Management.

Pressure-related deep tissue injury under intact skin and the current pressure ulcer staging systems.

Proposed Staging System and Deep Tissue Injury Definitions with Descriptions.

Reliability of pressure ulcer classification and diagnosis.

Reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system.

Should we include deep tissue injury in pressure ulcer staging systems? The NPUAP debate.

The development of a national registration form to measure the prevalence of pressure ulcers in The Netherlands.

The development of nonblanchable erythema in intensive care patients. Paper presented at the meeting of Sigma Theta Tau

The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

The reliability and utility of pressure sore grading scales.

Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP). 8th European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Open meeting: Pressure ulcers: back to basics – the fundamental principles.

Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP). Guidelines on treatment of pressure ulcers.

Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP). Pressure ulcer classification: differentiation between pressure ulcers and moisture lesions. EPUAP Review,

Wound bed preparation and the TIME principles.

EPUAP classification system for pressure ulcers: European reliability study

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Radboud Repository

NARCIS

Swepub

Southampton (e-Prints Soton)

Crossref

Lirias

Swepub

Ghent University Academic Bibliography