IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i21-22p4066-4075.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

PURPOSE T in Swedish hospital wards and nursing homes: A psychometric evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Hultin
  • Ann‐Christin Karlsson
  • Margareta Öhrvall
  • Susanne Coleman
  • Lena Gunningberg

Abstract

Aim To evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE T); reliability (inter‐rater and test–retest) and validity (convergent validity) in a Swedish context. Background Pressure ulcers are considered as an adverse event and are a problem in healthcare worldwide. The first step in pressure ulcer prevention is to identify patients that are at risk. PURPOSE T is a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument that was developed in the UK using “golden standard” instrument method. Design Observational, descriptive and comparative. Methods A total of 235 patients and 28 registered nurses were recruited (May 2018–November 2018) from six hospital wards at a university hospital and two community nursing homes in Sweden. Blinded (ward/nursing home nurses and expert nurses) PURPOSE T assessments and follow‐up retests were undertaken. Cross‐tabulation and kappa statistics were used to examine the reliability, and phi correlation was used to test the convergent validity. The study followed the STROBE guideline. Results The clinical evaluation showed “very good” (kappa) inter‐rater and test–retest reliability for PURPOSE T assessment decision overall. The agreement of “at risk”/“not at risk” for both inter‐rater and test–retest was also high, at least 95.5%. The convergent validity between PURPOSE T and other traditional assessment instruments was moderate. Conclusion The evaluation of PURPOSE T demonstrated good psychometric characteristics. Further research is needed to evaluate PURPOSE T’s usability among registered nurses. Relevance to clinical practice There is a lack of evidence‐based validated pressure ulcer risk assessment instruments for use in health care. According to our findings, the Swedish version of PURPOSE T could be used in hospitals and nursing homes to identify patients in risk or with pressure ulcers.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Hultin & Ann‐Christin Karlsson & Margareta Öhrvall & Susanne Coleman & Lena Gunningberg, 2020. "PURPOSE T in Swedish hospital wards and nursing homes: A psychometric evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(21-22), pages 4066-4075, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:21-22:p:4066-4075
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15433
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15433
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15433?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ami Hommel & Lena Gunningberg & Ewa Idvall & Carina Bååth, 2017. "Successful factors to prevent pressure ulcers – an interview study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1-2), pages 182-189, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. María Isabel González‐Méndez & Marta Lima‐Serrano & Catalina Martín‐Castaño & Inmaculada Alonso‐Araujo & Joaquín Salvador Lima‐Rodríguez, 2018. "Incidence and risk factors associated with the development of pressure ulcers in an intensive care unit," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 1028-1037, March.
    2. Ling Jiang & Li Li & Lisa Lommel, 2020. "Nurses’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours related to pressure injury prevention: A large‐scale cross‐sectional survey in mainland China," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(17-18), pages 3311-3324, September.

    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:29:y:2020:i:21-22:p:4066-4075. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.