Development of the DESIGN‐R with an observational study: An absolute evaluation tool for monitoring pressure ulcer wound healing

DESIGN is a seven‐item (depth, exudates, size, inflammation/infection, granulation, necrosis, and pocket) monitoring scale for pressure ulcers developed in 2002 by the scientific education committee of the Japanese Society of Pressure Ulcers. DESIGN is a very useful tool for chronological monitoring of each pressure ulcer, but a key limitation of this tool is its inability to compare the wound‐healing process among different pressure ulcers in different patients due to a lack of statistical item weighting. Our aim was to weight DESIGN items by statistical analysis and develop a new validated tool to overcome this limitation. Subjects comprised 3,601 patients with pressure ulcers. Patients were followed every week during the study period. To establish the weighting of each item and grade, we estimated the probabilities of wound healing at 12‐month follow‐up using multivariable Cox's regression analysis. Weighting (−β value) for each item in order of the highest rank was: pocket, 2.289; size, 1.573; inflammation/infection, 0.778; granulation tissue, 0.682; exudate, 0.543; and necrotic tissue, 0.529. Based on these findings, a new, validated “DESIGN‐Rating tool” for monitoring the progression of pressure ulcer healing was developed, implying the development of an absolute evaluation tool and clinical indicator to assess the quality of medical care.

[1]  D. Krasner,et al.  Wound Healing Scale, version 1.0: a proposal. , 1997, Advances in wound care : the journal for prevention and healing.

[2]  M. G. Woodbury,et al.  A Prospective, Multicenter Study to Validate Use of the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH©) in Patients with Diabetic, Venous, and Pressure Ulcers , 2010 .

[3]  G. Rodeheaver,et al.  An instrument to measure healing in pressure ulcers: development and validation of the pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH). , 2001, The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences.

[4]  M. Clark,et al.  Pressure ulcer prevalence in Europe: a pilot study. , 2007, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[5]  D. Thomas Pressure ulcer scale for healing, Derivation and varidation of the PUSH tool , 1997 .

[6]  Koji Kito,et al.  Pressure ulcers in America: prevalence, incidence, and implications for the future. An executive summary of the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel monograph. , 2001, Advances in skin & wound care.

[7]  C Sussman,et al.  Utility of the Sussman Wound Healing Tool in predicting wound healing outcomes in physical therapy. , 1997, Advances in wound care : the journal for prevention and healing.

[8]  Ferrell Ba The Sessing Scale for measurement of pressure ulcer healing. , 1997 .

[9]  B. Bates-Jensen,et al.  Validity and reliability of the Pressure Sore Status Tool. , 1992, Decubitus.

[10]  B. Ferrell The Sessing Scale for measurement of pressure ulcer healing. , 1997, Advances in wound care : the journal for prevention and healing.

[11]  A. Bartolucci,et al.  Using principal component analysis to describe wound status. , 1997, Advances in wound care : the journal for prevention and healing.

[12]  W. Snodgrass Physiology , 1897, Nature.

[13]  B. Ferrell,et al.  The Sessing Scale for Assessment of Pressure Ulcer Healing , 1995, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[14]  W. Spector,et al.  Stage 2 Pressure Ulcer Healing in Nursing Homes , 2008, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[15]  Y Miyachi,et al.  Reliability and validity of DESIGN, a tool that classifies pressure ulcer severity and monitors healing. , 2004, Journal of wound care.

[16]  R. Frantz,et al.  A prospective study of the pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH). , 2005, The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences.

[17]  H. Sanada,et al.  The Japanese pressure ulcer surveillance study: a retrospective cohort study to determine prevalence of pressure ulcers in Japanese hospitals. , 2008, Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice.

[18]  Conner Lm,et al.  In vivo (CT scan) comparison of vertical shear in human tissue caused by various support surfaces. , 1993 .

[19]  M. Flanagan A practical framework for wound assessment. 1: Physiology. , 1996, British journal of nursing.