The aim of this study was to determine the inter-rater reliability between one expert-nurse and four clinical-nurses who were asked to clinically assess infection of chronic wounds by using the World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) criteria.
A quasi-experimental design was used to collect the data. In comparison to phase 1 in which 'open questions' were asked, in phase 2 a pre-printed form (checklist) was introduced. In both phases, 55 chronic wounds were clinically assessed. For each WUWHS criterion the inter-rater reliability of signs and symptoms was expressed by Cohens Kappa (κ). A substantial agreement (κ ≥ 0·6) was considered as adequate.
In both phases pocketing (p < 0·02), and erythema (p < 0·004) scored statistically significant results. Phase 2 showed higher inter-rater agreements compared with phase 1 (three substantial agreements (easily bleeding/friable granulation tissue, delayed healing, increasing exudate), an almost perfect- and a perfect agreement for malodour and pain, respectively.
According to the results it can be concluded that the clinical assessment of infection of chronic wounds may be better supported by a pre-printed form than making use of an 'open questions' form. To provide this with a higher level of evidence, there is need for more well conducted studies.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου
Σημείωση: Μόνο ένα μέλος αυτού του ιστολογίου μπορεί να αναρτήσει σχόλιο.