IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v15y2006i4p444-450.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Establishing nurses’ preferences in wound assessment: a concept evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Miles E Maylor

Abstract

Aims and objectives. The aim of the study was to contribute to increasing reliability of wound assessment. The objectives were to capture terminology used and to assess whether these words reflected personality preferences for information. Background. Wound assessment forms are expected to be used reliably by non‐experts. This assumes that they mean the same thing to all practitioners. But many wound assessment forms are too complicated and do not necessarily show whether a wound is healing or not. Literature indicates that people have different information preferences that they use to aid judgement. Design. A correlational study investigating the relationship between word‐preferences and assessor's personality type. Method. Postregistration students (n = 45) and Tissue Viability Nurses (n = 16) suggested words or phrases to be used in an hypothetical wound assessment. Analysis was performed of how they preferred to describe healing, stasis and deterioration. They ranked the three most important signs they would look for in the three phases of wounds. Words were classified into categories (e.g. subjective, objective, value judgement), then matched with preferences seen in a personality type indicator. Results. Healing and deteriorating wounds were assessed relative to different signs or symptoms and static wounds were the most difficult to describe (mostly by absence of signs of healing). Personal types of approach to assessment could be identified: including subjectifiers and quantifiers. Conclusions. In this preliminary study, statistically significant results support the view that wound assessment involves assessor preferences. Assessors judge by the absence rather than the presence of some signs and symptoms. Relevance to clinical practice. Wound assessment forms need to take account of assessor preferences for subjectivity or quantification if reliability is to be increased, also different wound assessment forms could suit different wound phases. Potentially, assessor types could seek agreement more on outcomes of assessment rather than input.

Suggested Citation

  • Miles E Maylor, 2006. "Establishing nurses’ preferences in wound assessment: a concept evaluation," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 444-450, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:4:p:444-450
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01310.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01310.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01310.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:4:p:444-450. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.