Issues related to accurate classification of buttocks wounds

Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 635-642

  Mahoney, Mary ^a   Rozenboom, Barbara ^a   Doughty, Dorothy ^b   Smith, Hayden ^c  

^a Iowa Health Home Care   (United States)

^b EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c IOWA METHODIST MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BUTTOCK; CLASSIFICATION; DECUBITUS; HUMAN; INJURY; NURSING; PHOTOGRAPHY;

BUTTOCKS; HUMANS; PHOTOGRAPHY; PRESSURE ULCER; WOUNDS AND INJURIES;

EID: 81955162889     PISSN: 10715754     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/WON.0b013e31822fc3e5     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. McDonagh D. Moisture lesion or pressure ulcer? A review of the literature. J Wound Care. 2008;77(11):461-466.
2. Beeckman D, Schoonhoven L, Fletcher J, et al. EPUAP classification system for pressure ulcers: European reliability study. J Adv Nurs. 2007;60:682-691.
3. Kottner J, Halfens R. Moisture lesions: Interrater agreement and reliability. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19:716-720.
4. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Pressure ulcer classification: Differentiation between pressure ulcers and moisture lesions. EPUAP. 2005. http://www.epuap.org/review6-3/page6 html. Accessed May 26, 2011.
5. Gray M, Black J, Baharestani M, et al. Moisture-associated skin damage: Overview and pathophysiology. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2011;38(3):233-241.
6. Defloor T, Schoonhoven L, Fletcher J, et al. Pressure ulcer classifications: Differentiation between pressure ulcers and moisture lesions. EPUAP Rev. 2005;6(3):881-885.
7. Doughty D, Ramundo J, Bonham P, et al. Issues and challenges in staging of pressure ulcers. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2006;33:125-132.
8. Houwing R, Arends J, Dijk M, Koopman E, Haalboom J. Is the distinction between superficial pressure ulcers and moisture lesions justifiable? A clinical-pathologic study. Skinmed. 2007;6:113-117.
9. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Pressure ulcers' prevalence, cost and risk assessment: Consensus development conference statement. Decubitus. 1989;2(2):24-28.
10. Bergstrom N, Bennett MA, Carlson CE, et al. Pressure Ulcer Treatment Clinical Practice Guideline. No. 15. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1994.
11. Gray M, Black JM, Baharestani MM, et al. Moisture associated skin damage: Overview and pathophysiology. J Wound, Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2011;38(3):233-241.
12. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. International Guideline: Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline. Washington, DC: National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel; 2009.
13. Gray M, Bliss D, Doughty D, Ermer-Seltun J, Kennedy-Evans K, Palmer M. Incontinence-associated dermatitis: A consensus. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2007;34(1):45-54.
14. Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psycho Bull. 1971;76:378-382.
15. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
16. Defloor T, Schoonhoven L. Interrater reliability of the EPUAP pressure ulcer classification system using photographs. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13:952-959.
17. Defloor T, Schoonhoven L, Vanderwee K, Westrate J, Myny D. Reliability of the EPUAP Classification System. J Adv Nurs. 2006;54:189-198.