Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Marum, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by van Eijk, J. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van Marum, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by van Eijk, J. T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Age and Ageing, Vol 29, 63-68, Copyright © 2000 by British Geriatrics Society


ARTICLES

The Dutch pressure sore assessment score or the Norton scale for identifying at-risk nursing home patients?

RJ van Marum, ME Ooms, MW Ribbe and JT van Eijk
Department of General Practice, Nursing Home Medicine and Social Medicine/Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. rvmarum@knmg.nl

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the usefulness of a Dutch pressure sore risk assessment scale--the Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing (CBO; National Organization for Quality Assurance in Hospitals) score--in the detection of patients at risk of developing pressure sores after admission to a nursing home. As the Norton score is the standard method of risk assessment, we also investigated which score (Norton or CBO) has the stronger relationship to the development of pressure sores. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort design. PATIENTS: 220 nursing home patients, 80 men, 140 women, mean age 79 years (standard deviation 3). MEASURES: Admission assessments for the presence of pressure sores, CBO and Norton scores, preventive measures and demographic characteristics. We made observations every week for 4 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Presence or absence of pressure sores. MAIN RESULTS: 54 patients (25%) developed a pressure sore. A significant, nonlinear relationship was found between the CBO score on admission and the development of pressure ulcers for the first 2 weeks after admission. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that only mobility (odds ratio = 3.6, P = 0.0001) and mental state (odds ratio = 2.0, P = 0.03) showed a significant relationship with the development of pressure ulcers. The CBO score was no better in risk assessment than the Norton score. CONCLUSIONS: The CBO score can be used for assessment of the risk of developing pressure ulcers in the first 2 weeks after admission to a nursing home, but is no better than the Norton score. Since the Norton score is easier to use, it is slightly preferable for use in this setting. However, neither score is a good indicator of patients at risk. Physicians should not depend solely on risk scores when prescribing preventive measures.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Int J Qual Health CareHome page
J. Laine, U. H. Finne-Soveri, M. Bjorkgren, M. Linna, A. Noro, and U. Hakkinen
The association between quality of care and technical efficiency in long-term care
Int. J. Qual. Health Care, June 1, 2005; 17(3): 259 - 267.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical SciencesHome page
D. R. Thomas
Issues and Dilemmas in the Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: A Review
J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., June 1, 2001; 56(6): M328 - M340.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.