This study was to compare the predictive validity of Norton Scale(1962), Cubbin & Jackson Scale(1991), and Song & Choi Scale(1991).

Data were collected three times per week from 48-72hours after admission based on the four pressure sore risk assessment scales and a skin assessment tool for pressure sore on 112 intensive care unit(ICU) patients in a educational hospital Ulsan during Dec, 11, 2000 to Feb, 10, 2001. Four indices of validity and area under the curve(AUC) of receiver operating characteristic(ROC) were calculated.

Based on the cut off point presented by the developer, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value were as follows : Norton Scale : 97%, 18%, 35%, 93% respectively; Cubbin & Jackson Scale : 89%, 61%, 51%, 92%, respectively; and Song & Choi Scale : 100%, 18%, 36%, 100% respectively. Area under the curves(AUC) of receiver operating characteristic(ROC) were Norton Scale .737, Cubbin & Jackson Scale .826, Song & Choi Scale .683.

The Cubbin & Jackson Scale was found to be the most valid pressure sore risk assessment tool. Further studies on patients with chronic conditions may be helpful to validate this finding.

This study was done to identify the time interval to pressure ulcer and to determine the optimal time interval for position change depending on pressure ulcer risk in patients using foam mattress in intensive care units.

The Braden scale score, occurrence of pressure ulcers and position change intervals were assessed with 56 patients admitted to an intensive care unit from April to November, 2011. The time to pressure ulcer occurrence by Braden scale risk group was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log rank test. Then, the optimal time interval for position change was calculated with ROC curve.

The median time to pressure ulcer occurrence was 5 hours at mild or moderate risk, 3.5 hours at high risk and 3 hours at very high risk on the Braden scale. The optimal time interval for position change was 3 hours at mild and moderate risk, 2 hours at high and very high risk of Braden scale.

When foam mattresses are used a slight extension of the time interval for position change can be considered for the patients with mild or moderate pressure ulcer risk but not for patients with high or very high pressure ulcer risk by Braden scale.

The study was designed to determine the discriminating ability of a Bayesian network (BN) for predicting risk for pressure ulcers.

Analysis was done using a retrospective cohort, nursing records representing 21,114 hospital days, 3,348 patients at risk for ulcers, admitted to the intensive care unit of a tertiary teaching hospital between January 2004 and January 2007. A BN model and two logistic regression (LR) versions, model-I and -II, were compared, varying the nature, number and quality of input variables. Classification competence and case coverage of the models were tested and compared using a threefold cross validation method.

Average incidence of ulcers was 6.12%. Of the two LR models, model-I demonstrated better indexes of statistical model fits. The BN model had a sensitivity of 81.95%, specificity of 75.63%, positive and negative predictive values of 35.62% and 96.22% respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) was 85.01% implying moderate to good overall performance, which was similar to LR model-I. However, regarding case coverage, the BN model was 100% compared to 15.88% of LR.

Discriminating ability of the BN model was found to be acceptable and case coverage proved to be excellent for clinical use.

The purpose of this study was to determine the significant factors for risk estimate of aspiration and to evaluate the efficiency of the dysphagia assessment tool.

A consecutive series of 210 stroke patients with aspiration symptoms such as cough and dysphagia who had soft or regular diet without tube feeding were examined. The dysphagia assessment tool for aspiration was compared with videofluoroscopy using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis.

In CART analysis, of 34 factors, the significant factors for estimating risk of aspiration were cough during swallowing, oral stasis, facial symmetry, salivary drooling, and cough after swallowing. The risk estimate error of the revised dysphagia assessment tool was 25.2%, equal to that of videofluoroscopy.

The results indicate that the dysphagia assessment tool developed and examined in this study was potentially useful in the clinical field and the primary risk estimating factor was cough during swallowing. Oral stasis, facial symmetry, salivary drooling, cough after swallowing were other significant factors, and based on these results, the dysphagia assessment tool for aspiration was revised and complemented.