Article Data

  • Views 484
  • Dowloads 171

Original Research

Open Access

The application of braden scale and rough set theory for pressure injury risk in elderly male population

  • Feng-Min Cheng1,†
  • Yan-Jun Jin1,†
  • Ching-Wen Chien2
  • Yen-Ching Chuang3
  • Tao-Hsin Tung1

1Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, P. R. China

2Institute for Hospital Management, Tsing Hua University, Shenzhen Campus, P. R. China

3Institute of Public Health & Emergency Management, Taizhou University, Taizhou, P. R. China

DOI: 10.31083/jomh.2021.022

Online publish date: 12 March 2021

*Corresponding Author(s): Yen-Ching Chuang E-mail: yenching.chuang@gmail.com
*Corresponding Author(s): Tao-Hsin Tung E-mail: ch2876@gmail.com

† These authors contributed equally.

PDF (365.52 kB)

Abstract

Background: The elderly with a limited body or bedridden are prone to pressure injury, and the Braden scale is often used as a risk assessment tool. However, few studies have explained the relationship between risk factors and risk levels using machine learning methods from Braden clinical observation data. Additionally, nearly half of the elderly over 75 years old in China are men.

Purpose: This study aimed to establish a pressure injury risk prediction model for elderly male patients using a machine learning method based on hospital clinical data. It further analyses the importance of risk factors and risk levels.

Methods: This study's Braden observation data were obtained from the electronic medical records of elderly male patients from 27 October 2019 to 1 November 2020 in the case hospital. Rough set theory was used to identify the perception patterns between risk factors and risk levels based on the data.

Results: The importance of rough set theory showed that sensory perception and nutrition are key risk factors for identifying elderly male inpatients. Therefore, nurses should pay special attention to the measurement scores of these two risk factors. Moreover, this method also revealed conditions/decision rules for different risk levels. Among elderly male inpatients at risk of severe pressure injury, 42% of the observation data showed that their physical condition is completely limited in sensory perception, possibly insufficient nutrition, friction and shearing problems, and bedridden activities.

Conclusion: This model can effectively identify the critical risk factors and decision rules for different risk levels for pressure injury in elderly male inpatients. This allows nurses to focus on patients at a high risk of possible pressure injury in the future without increasing their workload. This study also provides a way to solve the problem that the Braden scale shows insufficient predictive validity and poor accuracy in identifying patients with different pressure injury risk levels, so it cannot fully reflect patients' characteristics.

Keywords

Pressure injury risk; Braden scale; Predictive modeling; Data mining; Rough set theory

Cite and Share

Feng-Min Cheng,Yan-Jun Jin,Ching-Wen Chien,Yen-Ching Chuang,Tao-Hsin Tung. The application of braden scale and rough set theory for pressure injury risk in elderly male population. Journal of Men's Health. 2021.doi:10.31083/jomh.2021.022.

References

[1] World Health Organization. China country assessment report on ageing and health. 2015. Available at https://www.who.int/ageing/publications/china-country-assessment/en/

(Accessed: 17 December 2020).

[2] National Bureau of Statistics. Tabulation on the 2010 population cen-sus of the people’s republic of China. 2012. Available at: http://www. stats.gov.cn/tjsj/pcsj/rkpc/6rp/indexch.htm (Accessed: 17 December 2020).

[3] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World population prospects: the 2012 revision. Volume II: Demographic Profiles. New York: United Nations. 2013.

[4] Park, SH, Lee YS, Kwon YM. Predictive validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment tools for elderly: a meta-analysis. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 2016; 38: 459-483.

[5] Jaul E. Assessment and management of pressure ulcers in the elderly. Drugs & Aging. 2010; 27: 311-325.

[6] Terry M, Halstead LS, O’Hare P, Gaskill C, Ho PS, Obecny J, et al. Feasibility study of home care wound management using telemedicine. Advances in Skin & Wound Care. 2009; 22: 358-364.

[7] Amirifar S, Reza Masouleh S, Pourshikhian M, Monfared A, Kazem-nejad Leili E. Predictive value of Braden Scale in pressure ulcer occurrence in hospitalized patients. Journal of Holistic Nursing and Midwifery. 2013; 23: 8-15.

[8] Edsberg LE, Langemo D, Baharestani MM, Posthauer ME, Goldberg M. Unavoidable pressure injury: state of the science and consensus outcomes. Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nursing. 2014; 41: 313-334.

[9] Black JM, Edsberg LE, Baharestani MM, Langemo D, Goldberg M, McNichol L, et al. Pressure ulcers: avoidable or unavoidable? Results of the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Consensus Conference. Ostomy Wound Management. 2011; 57: 24-37.

[10] Fernández FPG, Hidalgo PLP, Ágreda JJS, García CB. Pressure ulcer risk assessment scales. Gerokomos. 2008; 19: 136-144.

[11] Chan WS, Pang SMC, Kwong EWY. Assessing predictive validity of the modified Braden scale for prediction of pressure ulcer risk of orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2009; 18: 1565-1573.

[12] Ramundo JM. Reliability and validity of the Braden Scale in the home care setting. Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nursing. 1995; 22: 128-134.

[13] Maklebust J. Preventing pressure ulcers in home care patients. Home Healthcare Nurse. 1999; 17: 229-237.

[14] Park SH, Choi YK, Kang CB. Predictive validity of the Braden Scale for pressure ulcer risk in hospitalized patients. Journal of Tissue Viability. 2015; 24: 102-113.

[15] Cox J, Schallom M, Jung C. Identifying risk factors for pressure injury in adult critical care patients. American Journal of Critical Care. 2020; 29: 204-213.

[16] Alderden J, Cowan LJ, Dimas JB, Chen D, Zhang Y, Cummins M, et al. Risk factors for hospital-acquired pressure injury in surgical critical care patients. American Journal of Critical Care. 2020; 29: e128-e134.

[17] Cai JY, Zha ML, Yuan BF, Xie Q, Chen HL. Prevalence of pressure injury among Chinese community‐dwelling older people and its risk factors: a national survey based on Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2019; 75: 2516-2525.

[18] Hyun S, Vermillion B, Newton C, Fall M, Li X, Kaewprag P, et al. Predictive validity of the Braden scale for patients in intensive care units. American Journal of Critical Care. 2013; 22: 514-520.

[19] Jia Y, Li H, Li D, Li F, Li Q, Jiang Y, et al. Prognostic value of Braden scale in patients with acute myocardial infarction: from the retrospective multicenter study for early evaluation of acute chest pain. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. 2020; 35: e53-e61.

[20] Higgins J, Casey S, Taylor E, Wilson R, Halcomb P. Comparing the Braden and Jackson/Cubbin pressure injury risk scales in trauma-surgery ICU patients. Critical Care Nurse. 2020; 40: 52-61.

[21] Padula WV, Delarmente BA. The national cost of hospital‐acquired pressure injuries in the United States. International Wound Journal. 2019; 16: 634-640.

[22] Ladios-Martin M, Fernández-de-Maya J, Ballesta-López F, Belso-Garzas A, Mas-Asencio M, Cabañero-Martínez MJ. Predictive mod-eling of pressure injury risk in patients admitted to an intensive care unit. American Journal of Critical Care. 2020; 29: e70-e80.

[23] Moon M, Lee S.K. Applying of decision tree analysis to risk factors associated with pressure ulcers in long-term care facilities. Healthcare Informatics Research. 2017; 23: 43-52.

[24] Lahmann NA, Tannen A, Dassen T, Kottner J. Friction and shear highly associated with pressure ulcers of residents in long-term care - Classification Tree Analysis (CHAID) of Braden items. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2011; 17: 168-173.

[25] Raju D, Su X, Patrician PA, Loan LA, McCarthy MS. Exploring factors associated with pressure ulcers: a data mining approach. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2015; 52: 102-111.

[26] Setoguchi Y, Ghaibeh AA, Mitani K, Abe Y, Hashimoto I, Moriguchi H. Predictability of pressure ulcers based on operation duration, transfer activity, and body mass index through the use of an alternating decision tree. Journal of Medical Investigation. 2016; 63: 248-255.

[27] Casal-Guisande M, Comesaña-Campos A, Cerqueiro-Pequeño J, Bouza-Rodríguez JB. Design and development of a methodology based on expert systems. Applied to the Treatment of Pressure Ulcers. Diagnostics. 2020; 10: 614.

[28] Pawlak Z. Rough sets. International Journal of Computer & Informa-tion Sciences. 1982; 11: 341-356.

[29] Zhai LY, Khoo LP, Zhong ZW. Design concept evaluation in product development using rough sets and grey relation analysis. Expert Systems with Applications. 2009; 36: 7072-7079.

[30] Han S, Jin XN, Li JX. An assessment method for the impact of missing data in the rough set-based decision fusion. Intelligent Data Analysis. 2016; 20: 1267-1284.

[31] Liou JJH, Chuang Y, Chuang YC, Hsu CC. Improving airline service quality based on rough set theory and flow graphs. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering. 2016; 33: 123-133.

[32] Shyng JY, Shieh HM, Tzeng GH, Hsieh SH. Using FSBT technique with Rough Set Theory for personal investment portfolio analysis. European Journal of Operational Research. 2010; 201: 601-607.

[33] Bergstrom N, Braden BJ, Laguzza A, Holman V. The Braden scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Nursing Research. 1987; 36: 205-210.

[34] Ayello EA, Braden B. How and why to do pressure ulcer risk assessment. Advances in Skin & Wound Care. 2002; 15: 125-133.

[35] Hassanien AE, Abraham A, Peters JF, Schaefer G, Henry C. Rough sets and near sets in medical imaging: a review. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine. 2009; 13: 955-968.

[36] Shyng JY, Shieh HM, Tzeng GH. Compactness rate as a rule selection index based on Rough Set Theory to improve data analysis for personal investment portfolios. Applied Soft Computing. 2011; 11: 3671-3679.

[37] Pacheco F, Cerrada M, Sánchez RV, Cabrera D, Li C, Valente de Oliveira J. Attribute clustering using rough set theory for feature selection in fault severity classification of rotating machinery. Expert Systems with Applications. 2017; 71: 69-86.

[38] Amin A, Anwar S, Adnan A, Nawaz M, Alawfi K, Hussain A, et al. Customer churn prediction in the telecommunication sector using a rough set approach. Neurocomputing. 2017; 237: 242-254.

[39] Yan HY, Wu D, Huang Y, Wang G, Shang MS, Xu JJ, et al. Water eutrophication assessment based on rough set and multidimensional cloud model. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems. 2017; 164: 103-112.

[40] Pawlak Z. Rough set approach to knowledge-based decision support. European Journal of Operational Research. 1997; 99: 48-57.

[41] Laboratory of intelligent decision support systems (IDSS). ROSE2 (Rough Sets Data Explorer). Available at: http://idss.cs.put. poznan.pl/site/rose.html (Accessed: 17 December 2020).

[42] Li HL, Lin SW, Hwang YT. Using nursing information and data mining to explore the factors that predict pressure injuries for patients at the end of life. Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 2019; 37: 133-141.

[43] Guidotti R, Monreale A, Ruggieri S, Turini F, Giannotti F, Pedreschi D. A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM Computing Surveys. 2018; 51: 1-42.

[44] Bai C, Sarkis J. Green supplier development: analytical evaluation using rough set theory. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2010; 18: 1200-1210.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,200 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Social Sciences Citation Index Social Sciences Citation Index contains over 3,400 journals across 58 social sciences disciplines, as well as selected items from 3,500 of the world’s leading scientific and technical journals. More than 9.37 million records and 122 million cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in the social and behavioral sciences.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

SCOPUS Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

DOAJ DOAJ is a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals.

CrossRef Crossref makes research outputs easy to find, cite, link, assess, and reuse. Crossref committed to open scholarly infrastructure and collaboration, this is now announcing a very deliberate path.

Portico Portico is a community-supported preservation archive that safeguards access to e-journals, e-books, and digital collections. Our unique, trusted process ensures that the content we preserve will remain accessible and usable for researchers, scholars, and students in the future.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

    Top