目的:探讨采用Munro评估量表与ELPO评估量表对术中患者发生压力性损伤的风险性能评估效果。方法:采用病例对照研究方法,选取拟施行外科手术的患者312例作为研究对象,使用Munro评估量表与ELPO评估量表分别对术中患者进行压力性损伤的风险评估,计算受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)、约登指数、灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值与阴性预测值。结果:有29例患者发生压力性损伤,发生率为9.29 %。使用两种量表评估时,压力性损伤组与无压力性损伤组量表评分比较,差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05); Munro评估量表与ELPO评估量表ROC曲线下面积分别为0.773、0.878,最佳阈值分别为23.5分、17.5分,说明此时量表的预测性能最好。结论:Munro评估量表与ELPO评估量表均能够评估手术患者压力性损伤的发生风险,但ELPO评估量表的预测性能高于Munro评估量表。
Objective: To explore the effect of Munro scale and ELPO scale on the risk efficacy of pressure injury in surgical patients. Methods: A case-control study was conducted to select 312 patients who were scheduled to undergo surgery as the research objects.The Munro scale and ELPO scale were used to assess the risk of pressure injury in patients during surgery, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), ordon index, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated. Results: A total of 29 patients with pressure injury, with an incidence of 9.29 %.When using the two scales for evaluation, there was a statistical difference in the scale scores between the pressure injury group and the non-pressure injury group (P<0.05).The areas under the ROC curve of Munro and ELPO scales were 0.773 and 0.878, respectively, and the optimal thresholds were 23.5 and 17.5 points,indicating that the scale had the best prediction performance. Conclusion: Both Munro and ELPO scales can assess the risk of pressure injury in surgical patients, but the predictive performance of ELPO scale is higher than that of Munro scale.
[1] Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society-Wound Guidelines Task Force .WOCN 2016 guideline for prevention and management of pressure injuries (ulcers):An executive summary[J].J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs, 2017, 44(3):241-246.
[2] Joseph J,Mclaughlin D,Darian V,et al.Alternating pressure overlay for prevention of intraoperative pressure injury[J].J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs,2019,46(1):13-17.
[3] Xiong C,Gao XL,Ma Q,et al.Risk factors for intraoperative pressure injuries in patients undergoing digestive surgery:a retrospective study[J].J Clin Nurs,2019,28(78):1148-1155.
[4] 高兴莲,熊璨,杨英,等.术中压力性损伤患者围手术期特征的回顾性分析[J].护理学杂志,2020,35(3):42-45.
[5] 吴晓舟,刘晓黎,王泠.围手术期压力性损伤风险评估量表应用的研究进展[J].中华现代护理杂志,2019,25(8):1047-1050.
[6] Munro CA.The development of a pressure ulcer risk-assessment scale for perioperative patients[J].AORN J,2010,92(3):272-287.
[7] 李冬雪,盛孝敏,唐佳,等.改良版Munro围术期成人压疮风险评估量表在手术患者压疮评估中的预测性研究[J].重庆医科大学学报,2018,43(2):297-301.
[8] Lopes CM, Haas VJ, Dantas RA,et al.Assessment scale of risk for surgical positioning injuries[J].Rev Lat Am Enfermagem,2016,24:e2704.
[9] Nassaji M,Askari Z,Ghorbani R.Cigarette smoking and risk of pressure ulcer in adult intensive care unit patients[J].Int J Nurs Pract,2014,20(4):418-423.
[10] 史桂蓉,王晓慧,刘萍,等.Scott Triggers评分表与Munro量表评估手术患者压力性损伤的效果比较[J].护理学杂志,2020,35(7):43-46.
[11] Holmes R,Macchiano K,Jhangiani SS,et al.Nutrition know-how.Combating pressure sores:nutritionally[J].Am J Nurs,1987,87(10):1301-1303.
[12] 孙欣悦,吴金球,程云,等.养老机构老年人压力性损伤风险因素树模型的构建[J].中华护理杂志,2018,53(S1):75-83.
[13] 余松林.医学统计学[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2002:175.
[14] Lin SL,Ma YY,Zou HD.Enhanced Youden's index with net benefit:a feasible approach for optimal-threshold determination in shared decision making[J].J Eval Clin Pract,2020,26(2):551-558.
[15] 李冬雪,李钱玲,向明菊,等.两种不同量表对手术获得性压力性损伤预测效果的对比研究[J].重庆医科大学学报,2021,(6):1-5.
[16] Delmore B,Kent M.An educational implementation process staff survey:lessons learned[J].Adv Skin Wound Care,2018,31(5):234-238.
