Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15207/JKCS.2020.11.11.443

Reliability of the Visual Discrimination Scale on Oral Mucosa Pressure Ulcer for Healthcare Providers  

Uhm, Ju-Yeon (Department of Nursing, Pukyong National University)
Kim, Myoung Soo (Department of Nursing, Pukyong National University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korea Convergence Society / v.11, no.11, 2020 , pp. 443-450 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the oral mucosa pressure ulcer classification system based on the photographs. The study consisted of two stages; development and evaluation. In the developmental stage, 9 photographs of 82 were selected. In the evaluation stage, a total of 49 participants were invited web-based survey by e-mail. Cohen's weighted kappa and Krippendorff's alpha were used to define the inter-rater reliability. Nine photographs consisted of two, three, three, and one in normal, stage 1, stage 2, and stomatitis, respectively. The inter-rater reliabilities of wound care nurse specialist, intensive care nurse specialist, and dentist groups were 0.75, 0.70, and 0.78, respectively. The intra-rater reliability was 0.73. The inter-rater and intra-rater reliabilities of the oral mucosa pressure ulcer classification system showed substantially good agreement.
Keywords
Mucous membrane; Pressure ulcer; Classification; Reproducibility of results; Assessment;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. (2020. 06. 12). Consensus conference on pressure ulcer staging. http://www.npuap.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/As-of-2-12-Reg-Brochure.pdf
2 Y. J. Lee, J. Y. Kim & T. W. Lee. (2011). Inter-rater reliability of the pressure ulcer classification system. Korean Wound Management Society, 7(2), 75-80.
3 National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. (2020. 06. 12) National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel announces a change in terminology from pressure ulcer to pressure injury and updates the stages of pressure injury . http://www.npuap.org/national-pressure-ulcer-advisory-panel-npuap-announces-a-change-in-terminology-from-pressure-ulcer-to-pressure-injury-and-updates-the-stages-of-pressure-injury.
4 J. Kottner et al. (2020). Pressure ulcer/injury classification today; An international perspective. Journal of Tissue Viability, 29(3), 197-203. DOI : 10.1016/j.jtv.2020.04.003.   DOI
5 J. Kottner, B. J. Gajewski & D. L. Streiner. (2011). Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(6), 659-660. DOI : 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.017   DOI
6 International Council for Harmonization. (2019. 09. 12). The international council for harmonization of technical requirements for pharmaceuticals for human use (ver. 3). http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ABOUT_ICH/Articles_Procedures/ICH_EWG_IWG_SOP_v3.0_final_22Jun2017-.pdf
7 Y. J. Lee & S. Park. (2016). Effects of pressure ulcer classification system education programme on knowledge and visual discrimination ability of pressure ulcer classification and incontinence-associated dermatitis for clinical nurses in Korea. International Wound Journal, Supple 1, 26-32. DOI : 10.1111/iwj.12546   DOI
8 J. R. Landis & G. G. Koch. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.   DOI
9 T. Defloor & L. Schoonhoven. (2014). Inter-rater reliability of the EPUAP pressure ulcer classification system using photographs. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 13(8), 952-959. DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00974.x   DOI
10 E. J. Lee & S. O. Yang. (2011). Clinical knowledge and actual performance of pressure ulcer care by hospital nurses. Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research, 17(2), 251-261.
11 J. L. Fleiss. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. London: John Wiley & Sons.
12 D. V. Cincchetti & S. A. Sparrow. (1981). Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 86(2), 127-137.
13 T. Abe et al. (2018). Epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in ICUs across 50 countries. Critical Care, 22(1), 195. DOI : .10.1186/s13054-018-2126-6.   DOI
14 M. Koo, Y. Sim & I. Kang. (2019). Risk Factorsof Medical Device-Related Pressure Ulcer in Intensive Care Units. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 49(1), 36-45.   DOI
15 T. Defloor et al. (2006). Reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54, 189-198.   DOI
16 National Cancer Information Center. (2020. 02. 12) Understanding of Cancer. http;//www.cancer.go.kr/ncic/cics_a/03/031/0312/index.html
17 C. Kim, M. S. Kim, M. J. Kang, H. H. Kim, N. J. Park & H. J. Jung. (2019). Oral mucosa pressure ulcers in intensive care unit patients: a preliminary observational study of incidence and risk factors. Journal of Tissue Viability, 28(1), 27-34. DOI : 10.1016/j.jtv.2018.11.002   DOI
18 S. H. Kim. (2020). Correlation among mechanical physiological characteristics and oral mucosa pressure ulcer of intubated patients in intensive care unit. Master's thesis. Pukyong National University, Busan.
19 G. Amrani & A. Gefen. (2019). Which endotracheal tube location minimises the device-related pressure ulcer risk: The centre or a corner of the mouth? International Wound Journal, 17(2), 268-276.   DOI
20 North of England Critical Care Network. (2020. 03. 6). BPG 02: Endo-tracheal tube care. https://www.noeccn.org.uk/resources/Documents/Benchmarks%20Guidelines/Guideline%20-%20New/BPG%2002%20-%20ETT%20Care%20Final.pdf
21 D. Jackson, A. M. Sarki, R. Betteridge & J. Brooke. (2019). Medical device-related pressure ulcers: a systemic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 92, 109-120. DOI : 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.02.006   DOI
22 E. N. Marieb & K. Hoehn. (2011). Anatomy and physiology (4thed.). San Francisco: Pearson.
23 S. Hanonu & A. Karadag. (2016). A prospective, descriptive study to determine the rate and characteristics of and risk factors for the development of medical device-related pressure ulcers in intensive care units. Ostomy Wound Management, 62(2), 12-22.
24 M. Barakat-Johnson, M. Lai, T. Wand, M. Li, K. White & F. Coyer. (2019). The incidence and prevalence of medical device-related pressure ulcers in intensive care: A systematic review. Journal of Wound Care, 28(8), 512-521. DOI : 10.12968/jowc.2019.28.8.512   DOI
25 S. Reaper, C. Green, S. Gupta & R. Tiruvoipati. (2017). Inter-rater reliability of the reaper oral mucosa pressure injury scale (ROMPIS): A novel scale for the assessment of the severity of pressure injuries to the mouth and oral mucosa. Australian Critical Care, 30(3), 167-171.   DOI
26 D. J. Whitby & M. W. Ferguson. (1991). The extracellular matrix of lip wounds in fetal, neonatal and adult mice. Development, 112(2), :651-668.   DOI
27 J. Black et al. (2015). Use of wound dressing to enhance prevention of pressure ulcers caused by medical devices. International Wound Journal, 12(3), 322-327. DOI : 10.1111/iwj.12111   DOI