Risk Assessment Tools for Pressure Ulcers Essay Paper
Research for risk assessment tools for pressure injuries. Select two to three pressure injury risk assessment tools and compare them for effectiveness. What would you add or remove to make the tool more effective? What would be the expected outcomes from the change? Would the change have an effect on the healthcare cost burden associated with prevention efforts and treatment of pressure-related injuries?
Risk Assessment Tools for Pressure Ulcers
Research for risk assessment tools for pressure injuries. Select two to three pressure injury risk assessment tools and compare them for effectiveness.
Pressure ulcers present a concern for immobile bedridden patients. Risk assessment tools are used in early identification of patients who are at most risk of pressure ulcers since the results of the tools help medical personnel in early identification of the pressure ulcers and interventions to reduce unfavorable care outcomes. There are a range of risk assessment tools applied in medical care with three of the tools being: the Braden (ALB) scale; the CALCULATE; and the COMHON. Risk Assessment Tools for Pressure Ulcers Essay Paper A comparison of their effectiveness reveals that the Braden (ALB) scale has a 74% accuracy in predicting pressure ulcers, the CACULATE has a 71% accuracy; and the COMHON has a 61% accuracy. This shows that the Braden (ALB) scale is the most effective in predicting pressure ulcer development at 74% (Theeranut, Ninbanphot & Limpawattana, 2020).
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
What would you add or remove to make the tool more effective? What would be the expected outcomes from the change?
Braden (ALB) scale assesses the elements of risk that contribute to either lower tissue tolerance for pressure, or higher intensity and duration of pressure. Still, the effectiveness of the scale can be improved by incorporating standard laboratory results and patient-reported symptoms as supplemental indicators that improve the identification of vulnerable patients.
Would the change have an effect on the healthcare cost burden associated with prevention efforts and treatment of pressure-related injuries?
The change would help to reduce the health care cost burden associated with prevention efforts and treatment. That is because the change improves the effectiveness in identifying vulnerable patients so that there are reduced incidences of cases being missed. To be more precise, the missed cases that are not identified early condemns patients to unnecessary suffering. By improving early identifying and ensuring prompt treatment, less money will be spent on treating and curing pressure ulcers. Looking at it from another perspective, not only is the cost of treatment much less when prevented and where in the early stages, but the patients can also leave hospital early (Finkelman, 2019).
References
Finkelman, A. (2019). Professional Nursing Concepts: Competencies for Quality Leadership (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC.
Skogestad, I. J., Martinsen, L., Børsting, T. E., Granheim, T. I., Ludvigsen, E. S., Gay, C. L., & Lerdal, A. (2017). Supplementing the Braden scale for pressure ulcer risk among medical inpatients: the contribution of self‐reported symptoms and standard laboratory tests. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26, 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13438
Theeranut, A., Ninbanphot, S., & Limpawattana, P. (2020). Comparison of four pressure ulcer risk assessment tools in critically ill patients. Nursing in Critical Care, 26(1), 48-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511
