Development and Preliminary Validation of a Central Venous Access Device-Associated Skin Impairment Classification Tool Using Modified Delphi and Clinimetric Methods.
Hui Grace Xu, Jill Campbell, Mari Takashima and 9 others
PMID 39258848WHAT IT FOUND
Nurses using a new CVAD skin injury classification tool agreed strongly on most categories when rating 38 patient photographs.
It adds a complex presentation category, but testing was small and photo-based, so not yet proven in real care.
Key findings
01Seven specialist nurses reached consensus on a CVAD skin impairment tool with five aetiology categories and 14 definitions.
02The panel added a complex clinical presentation category for cases where more than one cause is present or the main cause is unclear.
03When experts rated individual definitions and signs and symptoms, agreement was excellent overall, though allergic dermatitis had the lowest agreement.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The tool was developed and preliminarily tested by the same seven expert nurses, so raters already understood the wording and categories. Reliability was tested only on 38 clinical photographs, not in real clinical practice with live patient assessment. The photographs came from cancer patients in acute-care hospitals, so results may not apply to other settings or patients without cancer. No photographs included darker skin tones, and no neonatal or younger paediatric cases were tested. The tool does not give an overall CASI severity score; severity ratings apply only to pressure injuries and skin tears. Allergic dermatitis had the lowest agreement, and the panel noted that photographs could not capture palpation, culture results or patient symptoms.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume this tool has been shown to work in routine nursing assessment. It was tested only by seven expert nurses rating 38 photographs, not in real clinical practice, and it lacked images from darker skin tones and neonates.