EPUAP classification system for pressure ulcers: European reliability study.

AIM This paper is a report of a study of the inter-observer reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel pressure ulcer classification system and of the differential diagnosis between moisture lesions and pressure ulcers. BACKGROUND Pressure ulcer classification is a valuable tool to provide a common description of ulcer severity for the purposes of clinical practice, audit and research. Despite everyday use of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel system, its reliability has been evaluated in only a limited number of studies. METHODS A survey was carried out between September 2005 and February 2006 with a convenience sample of 1452 nurses from five European countries. Respondents classified 20 validated photographs as normal skin, blanchable erythema, pressure ulcers (four grades), moisture lesion or combined lesion. The nurses were familiar with the use of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification scale. RESULTS Pressure ulcers were often classified erroneously (kappa = 0.33) and only a minority of nurses reached a substantial level of agreement. Grade 3 lesions were regularly classified as grade 2. Non-blanchable erythema was frequently assessed incorrectly as blanchable erythema. Furthermore, the differential diagnosis between moisture lesions and pressure ulcers appeared to be complicated. CONCLUSION Inter-observer reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system was low. Evaluation thus needs to focus on both the clarity and complexity of the system. Definitions and unambiguous descriptions of pressure ulcer grades and the distinction between moisture lesions will probably enhance clarity. To simplify the current classification system, a reduction in the number of grades is suggested.

[1]  D. Keast,et al.  MEASURE: A proposed assessment framework for developing best practice recommendations for wound assessment. , 2004, Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society.

[2]  Lisette Schoonhoven,et al.  Inter-rater reliability of the EPUAP pressure ulcer classification system using photographs. , 2004, Journal of clinical nursing.

[3]  R. Halfens,et al.  The development of a national registration form to measure the prevalence of pressure ulcers in The Netherlands. , 1999, Ostomy/wound management.

[4]  M. Collier Blanching and non-blanching hyperaemia. , 1999, Journal of wound care.

[5]  A. Sharp Pressure ulcer grading tools: how reliable are they? , 2004, Journal of wound care.

[6]  Jane Nixon,et al.  Reliability of pressure ulcer classification and diagnosis. , 2005, Journal of advanced nursing.

[7]  I. Guggenmoos‐Holzmann,et al.  How reliable are chance-corrected measures of agreement? , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  L C Parish,et al.  Histopathology of the decubitus ulcer. , 1982, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[9]  J. Donnelly,et al.  Should we include deep tissue injury in pressure ulcer staging systems? The NPUAP debate. , 2005, Journal of wound care.

[10]  J. D. Shea Pressure sores: classification and management. , 1975, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  R. Allman,et al.  Pressure ulcer risk factors among hospitalized patients with activity limitation. , 1995, JAMA.

[12]  L. Russell,et al.  How accurate are pressure ulcer grades? An image-based survey of nurse performance. , 2001, Journal of tissue viability.

[13]  D. Myny,et al.  Reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system. , 2006, Journal of advanced nursing.

[14]  Victor Alterescu,et al.  PRESSURE ULCERS: GUIDELINES FOR PREVENTION AND NURSING MANAGEMENT , 1991 .

[15]  R. Bennett,et al.  Low Airloss Hydrotherapy Versus Standard Care for Incontinent Hospitalized Patients , 1998, Journal of The American Geriatrics Society.

[16]  T. Defloor,et al.  Non-blanchable erythema as an indicator for the need for pressure ulcer prevention: a randomized-controlled trial. , 2007, Journal of clinical nursing.

[17]  G. Pedley Comparison of pressure ulcer grading scales: a study of clinical utility and inter-rater reliability. , 2004, International journal of nursing studies.

[18]  J. Fletcher Wound bed preparation and the TIME principles. , 2005, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[19]  C. Dealey,et al.  Pressure Ulcer Classification , 2006 .

[20]  Denise Polit-O'Hara,et al.  Nursing Research: Principles and Methods , 1978 .

[21]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.