The development and testing of a skin tear risk assessment tool

The aim of the present study is to develop a reliable and valid skin tear risk assessment tool. The six characteristics identified in a previous case control study as constituting the best risk model for skin tear development were used to construct a risk assessment tool. The ability of the tool to...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International wound journal Vol. 14; no. 1; pp. 97 - 103
Main Authors: Newall, Nelly, Lewin, Gill F, Bulsara, Max K, Carville, Keryln J, Leslie, Gavin D, Roberts, Pam A
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01-02-2017
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The aim of the present study is to develop a reliable and valid skin tear risk assessment tool. The six characteristics identified in a previous case control study as constituting the best risk model for skin tear development were used to construct a risk assessment tool. The ability of the tool to predict skin tear development was then tested in a prospective study. Between August 2012 and September 2013, 1466 tertiary hospital patients were assessed at admission and followed up for 10 days to see if they developed a skin tear. The predictive validity of the tool was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. When the tool was found not to have performed as well as hoped, secondary analyses were performed to determine whether a potentially better performing risk model could be identified. The tool was found to have high sensitivity but low specificity and therefore have inadequate predictive validity. Secondary analysis of the combined data from this and the previous case control study identified an alternative better performing risk model. The tool developed and tested in this study was found to have inadequate predictive validity. The predictive validity of an alternative, more parsimonious model now needs to be tested.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Correction added on 13 January 2016, after first online publication: the affiliation for the second author was corrected to Gill F Lewin1,2.
ISSN:1742-4801
1742-481X
1742-481X
DOI:10.1111/iwj.12561