RNSystematic ReviewRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2018

Instruments for the care of pressure injury in pediatrics and hebiatrics: an integrative review of the literature.

Mayara Kelly Moura Ferreira, Sabrina de Souza Gurgel, Francisca Elisângela Teixeira Lima and 2 others

PMID 30110107

WHAT IT FOUND

This review identified 25 instruments for managing pressure injuries in children and adolescents, including risk assessment scales like Braden Q and Glamorgan, as well as prevention protocols.

Only seven of these tools have documented validity and reliability data, meaning most lack evidence for their accuracy.

Key findings

01The review identified 25 instruments for pressure injury care in pediatrics, categorized into evaluative, preventive, and curative domains.

02Only seven instruments had reported validity and reliability data; the validation process was not described for the remaining tools.

03The Braden Q Scale was the most frequently used instrument for assessing pressure injury risk in this population.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The search was limited to quantitative articles, excluding qualitative studies that might describe how instruments are used in practice. Many included studies did not explicitly describe their design, making it difficult to assess the level of evidence. The review identifies instruments but does not evaluate their effectiveness in preventing pressure injuries, only their existence and validation status. Most validated instruments are scales for risk assessment; there is less evidence for the validity of prevention protocols and treatment tools.

The easy way to misread this

Do not assume that all 25 identified instruments are accurate or effective. Only seven have reported validity and reliability data. Using the other 18 tools without local validation or evidence of accuracy may lead to incorrect risk assessments or ineffective prevention strategies.

Read it on PubMed →