The effect of web-based braden scale training on the reliability of braden subscale ratings

Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 51-59

  Magnan, Morris A ^a   Maklebust, Joann ^b,c  

^a Emergency Department   (United States)

^b KARMANOS CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; EDUCATION; FUNCTIONS OF THE SKIN AND ITS APPENDAGES; HUMAN; INTERNET; NURSING ASSESSMENT; NURSING EDUCATION; NURSING STAFF; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; EDUCATION, NURSING, CONTINUING; HUMANS; INTERNET; NURSING ASSESSMENT; NURSING STAFF, HOSPITAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SKIN PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA;

EID: 65649088243     PISSN: 10715754     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/WON.0b013e3181919b8d     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Whittington KT, Briones R. National prevalence and incidence study: 6-year sequential acute care data. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2004;17(9):490-494.
2. Institute of Medicine. Keeping patients safe. Priority areas for national action. Transforming health care quality. http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3809/4671/ 16173.aspx. Published 2003. Accessed November 17, 2008.
3. Rutherford P, Lee B, Greiner A. Transforming Care at the Bedside. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Boston: Institute for Healthcare Improvement. http://www.IHI.org. Accessed September 18, 2008.
4. Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society. WOCN Guideline for Prevention and Management of Pressure Ulcers. Glenview, IL: Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society; 2003.
5. Keast DH, Parslow N, Houghton PE, Norton L, Fraser C. Best practice recommendations for the prevention and treatment of pressures: update 2006. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2008;20(8):447-462.
6. Cook M, Hale C, Watson B. Interrater reliability and the assessment of pressure sore risk using an adapted Waterlow Scale. Clin Eff Nurs. 1999;3:66-74.
7. Ayello EA, Braden B. Why is pressure ulcer risk assessment so important? Nursing. 2001;31(11):74-89.
8. Bergstrom N, Braden B, Kemp M. Predicting pressure ulcer risk: A multisite study of the predictive validity of the Braden Scale. Nurs Res. 1998;4(5):261-269.
9. Smith LN, Booth N, Douglas D, et al. A critique of "at risk" pressure sore assessment tools. J Clin Nurs. 1995;4:153-159.
10. Papanikolaou P, Lyne P, Anthony D. Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcers, a methodological review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2007;44:285-296.
11. Magnan MA, Maklebust J. The effect of Web-based training on the reliability and precision of Braden Scale pressure ulcer risk assessments. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2008;35(2):199-208.
12. Bergstrom N. Commentary: on accuracy. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2008;35(2):211-212.
13. Nightingale F. Notes on Nursing: What It Is and What It Is Not. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Dover Publications, Inc; 1969.
14. National Quality Forum. Safe practices for better healthcare: A consensus report. http://www.qualityforum.org/pdf/reports/-safe-practices.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2008.
15. Institute of Medicine. Nursing: inseparably linked to patient safety. In: Keeping Patients Safe: Transforming the Work Environment of Nurses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2004:23-52.
16. Maklebust J, Sieggreen MY, Sidor D, et al. Computer-based testing of the Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2005;51(4):40-52.
17. Braden BJ, Maklebust J. Preventing pressure ulcers with the Braden Scale: An update on this easy-to-use tool that assesses a patient's risk. Am J Nurs. 2005;105(6):70-72.
18. VandenBosch T, Montoye C, Satwicz M, et al. Predictive validity of the Braden Scale and nurse perception in identifying pressure ulcer risk. Appl Nurs Res. 1996;9:80-86.
19. Bergstrom N, Braden BJ, Laguzza A, Holman V. The Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Nurs Res. 1987;36(4): 205-210.
20. Ayello EA, Baranoski S, Salati DS. Nursing 2005 wound care survey. Nursing. 2005;35:36-45.
21. Goodwin LD, Prescott PA. Issues and approaches to estimating interrater reliability in nursing research. Res Nurs Health. 1981;4:323-337.
22. Burns N, Grove SK. The Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique, and Utilization. 5th ed. St Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders; 2005.
23. Halfens RJG, Van Achterberg T, Bal RM. Validity and reliability of the Braden Scale and the influence of other risk factors: A multi-centre prospective study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2000;37:313-319.
24. Bergstrom N, Braden BJ. Predictive validity of the Braden Scale among black and white subjects. Nurs Res. 2002;51(5):398-403.
25. Magnan MA, Maklebust J. Multisite Web-based training in use of the Braden Scale for predicting pressure ulcer risk. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2008;21(3):124-133.
26. Cardy M. The tool to document the competence of clinicians to prevent and manage pressure ulcers. Decubitus. 1992;5: 46-49.
27. Maklebust J. Interrupting the pressure ulcer cycle. Nurs Clin North Am. 1999;34(4):861-871.
28. Braden B. Commentary: the effect of Web-based Braden Scale training on the reliability and precision of Braden Scale pressure ulcer risk assessments. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2008;35(2):209-210.
29. Braden BJ, Bergstrom N. Clinical utility of the Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Decubitus. 1989;2(3):44-51.