Assessing peristomal skin changes in ostomy patients: Validation of the Ostomy Skin Tool

British Journal of Dermatology

Volumn 164, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 330-335

  Jemec, G B ^a   Martins, L ^b   Claessens, I ^c   Ayello, E A ^d   Hansen, A S ^e   Poulsen, Lis Hentze ^e   Sibbald, R G ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^d Excelsior College School of Nursing   (United States)

^e Coloplast A/S ^*  (Denmark)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DENMARK; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; NURSE; OSTOMY SKIN TOOL; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PHOTOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SKIN CARE; SPAIN; STOMA; VALIDATION PROCESS;

HUMANS; NURSING DIAGNOSIS; OBSERVER VARIATION; OSTOMY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SKIN; SKIN DISEASES;

EID: 79551493003     PISSN: 00070963     EISSN: 13652133     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.10093.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Nybaek H, Knudsen DB, Laursen TN, et al. Quality of life assessment among patients with peristomal skin disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 22: 139-43.
2. Lyon CC, Smith AJ, Griffiths CE, Beck MH,. The spectrum of skin disorders in abdominal stoma patients. Br J Dermatol 2000; 143: 1248-60.
3. Jemec GB, Nybaek H,. Peristomal skin problems account for more than one in three visits to ostomy nurses. Br J Dermatol 2008; 159: 1211-12.
4. Salvadalena G,. Incidence of complications of the stoma and peristomal skin among individuals with colostomy, ileostomy, and urostomy. A systematic review. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2008; 35: 596-607.
5. Hankins W, Hampton BG,. Peristomal and stomal complications. In: Ostomies and Continent Diversions: Nursing Management. St Louis, MO: Mosby, 1992; 105-23.
6. Feldman SR, Fleischer AB Jr, Chen JG,. The gatekeeper model is inefficient for the delivery of dermatologic services. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999; 40: 426-32.
7. Griffiths CE, Taylor H, Collins SI, et al. The impact of psoriasis guidelines on appropriateness of referral from primary to secondary care: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Dermatol 2006; 155: 393-400.
8. Jemec GB, Wulf HC,. Assessment of morbidity from skin diseases. Br J Dermatol 1997; 137: 157-8.
9. Holm EA, Wulf HC, Thomassen L, Jemec GB,. Instrumental assessment of atopic eczema: validation of transepidermal water loss, stratum corneum hydration, erythema, scaling, and edema. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006; 55: 772-80.
10. Holm EA, Wulf HC, Thomassen L, Jemec GB,. Assessment of atopic eczema: clinical scoring and noninvasive measurements. Br J Dermatol 2007; 157: 674-80.
11. Finlay AY,. Current severe psoriasis and the rule of tens. Br J Dermatol 2005; 152: 861-7.
12. Fredriksson T, Pettersson U,. Severe psoriasis-oral therapy with a new retinoid. Dermatologica 1978; 157: 238-44.
13. Price P, Harding K,. Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule: the development of a condition-specific questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in patients with chronic wounds of the lower limb. Int Wound J 2004; 1: 10-17.
14. Berth-Jones J, Grotzinger K, Rainville C, et al. A study examining inter- and intrarater reliability of three scales for measuring severity of psoriasis: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, Physician's Global Assessment and Lattice System Physician's Global Assessment. Br J Dermatol 2006; 155: 707-13.
15. Barbier N, Paul C, Luger T, et al. Validation of the Eczema Area and Severity Index for atopic dermatitis in a cohort of 1550 patients from the pimecrolimus cream 1% randomized controlled clinical trials programme. Br J Dermatol 2004; 150: 96-102.
16. Charman C, Williams H,. Outcome measures of disease severity in atopic eczema. Arch Dermatol 2000; 136: 763-9.
17. Singer AJ, Arora B, Dagum A, et al. Development and validation of a novel scar evaluation scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120: 1892-7.
18. Martins L, Tavernelli K, Serrano JLC,. Introducing a peristomal skin assessment tool. WCET J 2008; 28: 8-13.
19. Herlufsen P, Olsen AG, Carlsen B, et al. Study of peristomal skin disorders in patients with permanent stomas. Br J Nurs 2006; 15: 854-62.
20. Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews JNS,. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2005.
21. Bland JM, Altman DG,. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 135-60.
22. Woo KY, Sibbald RG, Ayello EA, et al. Peristomal skin complications and management. Adv Skin Wound Care 2009; 22: 522-32.
23. St-Cyr D,. An evaluation of the Canadian ostomy assessment guide. Ostomy Wound Manage 2002; 48: 26-32.
24. Buntinx F, Beckers H, De KG, et al. Inter-observer variation in the assessment of skin ulceration. J Wound Care 1996; 5: 166-70.
25. Defloor T, Schoonhoven L,. Inter-rater reliability of the EPUAP pressure ulcer classification system using photographs. J Clin Nurs 2004; 13: 952-9.
26. Lorentzen HF, Gottrup F,. [Interobserver variation in wound assessments]. Ugeskr Laeger 1998; 160: 3215-18.
27. Lorentzen HF, Holstein P, Gottrup F,. [Interobserver variation in the Red-Yellow-Black wound classification system]. Ugeskr Laeger 1999; 161: 6045-8.
28. Oduncu H, Hoppe A, Clark M, et al. Analysis of skin wound images using digital color image processing: a preliminary communication. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2004; 3: 151-6.
29. Vermeulen H, Ubbink DT, Schreuder SM, et al. Inter- and intra-observer (dis)agreement among nurses and doctors to classify colour and exudation of open surgical wounds according to the Red-Yellow-Black scheme. J Clin Nurs 2007; 16: 1270-7.