Comparison of pressure injury risk assessment outcomes using a structured assessment tool versus clinical judgement: A systematic review. Issue 9 (1st December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lovegrove, Josephine; Ven, Saroeun; Miles, Sandra J.; Fulbrook, Paul
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical nursing. Volume 32:Issue 9/10(2023)
• Page Start: 1674
• Page End: 1690
• Publication Date: 2021-12-01
• Subjects: acute care -- clinical judgement -- clinical reasoning -- hospitals -- nursing -- pressure injury -- pressure ulcer -- prevention -- risk assessment; Nursing -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; 610.7305
• DOI: 10.1111/jocn.16154
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0962-1067

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Whilst performing a pressure injury risk assessment is not in itself preventive, risk status identification is critical to inform the judicious implementation of prevention strategies. Risk assessment is mostly undertaken using a structured tool informed by clinical judgement, though there is a perception that use of clinical judgement alone may be sufficient. Objectives: Within acute hospital settings, to identify differences in outcomes (risk status, preventive interventions) following nursing assessment of pressure injury risk when using a structured assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: EBSCO CINAHL Complete, EBSCO MEDLINE Complete, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid EMBASE. Methods: Primary research relevant to the objectives was eligible for inclusion. Databases were searched in February 2021 (limits: date 2010–2020, English language, adults). Two reviewers undertook the review process, with a third as arbitrator. Appraisal was undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Included studies are synthesised narratively. Reporting is in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. Results: Five moderate to high‐quality studies were included. Synthesis was limited by heterogeneity. Several risk assessment tools and methods of clinical judgement were used. Three studies reported pressure injury risk status using both assessment approaches, but in only one did nurses undertake both. Risk status, as identified by each method, varied and was sometimes contradictory. Three studies reported some elements of preventive intervention prescription and/or implementation following risk assessment, but comparison between approaches was limited. Conclusions: Some research suggests that risk status varies across different methods of pressure injury risk assessment, but it is unclear what impact this has on preventive intervention use. Risk status was not well linked to preventive interventions. Research is warranted to examine the influence that each approach to risk assessment alone and combined has on identified risk and preventive intervention prescription and implementation. Registration: A protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021224747).