Determining Pressure Injury Risk on Admission to Inpatient Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation: A Comparison of the FIM, Spinal Cord Injury Pressure Ulcer Scale, and Braden Scale

• Published in: Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation Vol. 100; no. 10; pp. 1881 - 1887
• Main Authors: Flett, Heather M., Delparte, Jude J., Scovil, Carol Y., Higgins, Johanne, Laramée, Marie-Thérèse, Burns, Anthony S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-10-2019
• Subjects: Canada; Cohort Studies; Disability Evaluation; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Likelihood Functions; Male; Middle Aged; Predictive Value of Tests; Pressure ulcer; Pressure Ulcer - etiology; Pressure Ulcer - prevention & control; Preventative health services; Rehabilitation; Retrospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Spinal cord injuries; Spinal Cord Injuries - complications; Spinal Cord Injuries - rehabilitation; Canada; SCIPUS; OR; IRGLM; Pressure ulcer; SCI; PI; TRI-UHN; Spinal cord injuries; Rehabilitation; Preventative health services; REB; AUC
• ISSN: 0003-9993; 1532-821X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.04.004

Assess the utility of the admission Spinal Cord Injury Pressure Ulcer Scale (SCIPUS), Braden Scale, and the FIM for identifying individuals at risk for developing pressure injury during inpatient spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation.
Retrospective cohort.
Two tertiary rehabilitation centers.
Individuals (N=754) participating in inpatient SCI rehabilitation.
Not applicable.
Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the utility of the SCIPUS, Braden Scale, and FIM for identifying individuals at risk for developing pressure injury (PI) during inpatient SCI rehabilitation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, false negative rate, odds ratio, likelihood ratio, and area under the curve (AUC) are reported.
The SCIPUS total score and its individual items did not demonstrate acceptable accuracy (AUC≥0.7) whereas the Braden Scale (0.73) and the FIM score (0.74) did. Once items were dichotomized into high and low risk categories, 1 Braden item (friction and shear), 5 FIM items (bathing, toileting, bed/chair transfer, tub/shower transfer, toilet transfer), the FIM transfers subscale, FIM Motor subscale, and the FIM instrument as a whole, maintained AUCs ≥0.7 and negative predictive values ≥0.95. The FIM bed/chair transfer score demonstrated the highest likelihood ratio (2.62) and overall was the most promising measure for determining PI risk.
Study findings suggest that a simple measure of mobility, admission FIM bed/chair transfer score of 1 (total assist), can identify at-risk individuals with greater accuracy than both an SCI specific instrument (SCIPUS) and a PI specific instrument (Braden). The FIM bed/chair transfer score can be readily determined at rehabilitation admission with minimal administrative and clinical burden.