Números anteriores

Validation of the EMINA pressure risk assessment
Rodríguez Torres Mª.C., García Fernández F.C., Plaza Jurado F., De la Casa Maldonado F., Martínez Martos C., Noguera Gutiérrez A., Caro Lázaro E.

Aim: To determine the validity of EMINA risk assessment scale (RAS) for pressure ulcers (PU) in a hospital of long stay.

Method: Prospective study on the patients admitted of Universitary Hospital “Dr. Sagaz”, from Jaén’s Hospital Center. Inclusion criteria: All patients admitted for any pathology between the January 1st 2004 and the 31st May 2004. Exclusion Criteria: To present pressure ulcer previously. The valuation of the risk was carried out in the first 72 h. In an interval non superior to twenty-four hours was newly evaluated for another member of the team to measure the reliability. To the Preventive Care Unit of the Hospital were carried out for the patients with risk (EMINA ≤ 4). During the whole stay and on a weekly basis, was proven the appearance or not of PU. The validity analyzed indicators were: sensibility, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative (NPV), effectiveness and reability (means of the coefficient of correlation of Spearman (R) and area under the curve (AUC). The risk variables analyzed were the odds ratio and their confidence interval.

Results: Of the 188 patients included in the study, a total of 15 developed PU. The best result of RASis with the 5 point’s court (sensibility in 80%, specificity 52%, PPV 12,6%, VPN 96,7%, effectiveness 54,2%. The reability obtained a R of Spearman 0,93 and the ROC 0,84. The odds ratio with cross-section at 5 was 4,34 (CI 95%1,18-15,91).

Conclusions: The EMINA scale behaves as a good scale to determine the risk for the patients to develop PU in patients in a hospital of long stay. This predictive hability is increased if the cross-section of the risk is located at 5 points. The good level of sensibility and PNV are the two more important elements. The reliability was very appropriate because the scale has the definition of each one of the parameters of the same one. The odds ratio is adequate with the cross-section at 5.