| Popis: |
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. |
Plný text