WebNov 1, 1999 · The complete revised Jackson/Cubbin Pressure Area Risk Calculator is shown in Table 6. Use of specialized beds It has always been a wish or perhaps an ambition, for want of a better word, to be able to identify accurately which bed would be most suitable at which score rating. However, trials of this nature could prove unethical. WebPurpose: This study was to compare the predictive validity of Norton Scale(1962), Cubbin & Jackson Scale(1991), and Song & Choi Scale(1991). Method: Data were collected three times per week from 48-72 hours after admission based on the four pressure sore risk assessment scales and a skin assessment tool for pressure sore on 112 intensive care …

(PDF) The World of Critical Care Nursing Predictive …

WebAlthough the Jackson/Cubbin pressure ulcer (PU) risk scale performs best among risk scales used in intensive care units (ICUs), its performance was not fully satisfactory. In 2010, a minimally modified Jackson/Cubbin (mJ/C) PU risk scale was introduced to formalize PU risk assessment in a large medi … WebFeb 1, 2004 · This study was to compare the validity of three pressure ulcer risk tools: Cubbin and Jackson, Braden, and Douglas scales. Data were collected three times … high risk mccs

The revised Jackson/Cubbin pressure area risk calculator

WebAt the cut-off score of 24 of the Cubbin and Jackson scale, the sensitivity, specific-ity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and AUC were 72.0%, 68.8%, 27.7%, 93.7%, and 0.76, respectively. Eight items out 10 of the Cubbin and Jackson scale were readily available in the EMR data. Conclusions: The Cubbin and Jackson scale WebThe inclusion criteria were met by fifteen studies on the validity of the Braden, Norton, Waterlow Scale, Song and Choi, Cubbin and Jackson, Modified Norton, EVARUCI, Suriadi and Sanada and Modified Braden scales. The most frequently tested scales included the Braden, Waterlow and Norton scales. The Braden Scale showed optimal predictive validity. WebMar 1, 2024 · The specificity was 18.4% for the Cubbin-Jackson scale and 27.9% for the Braden scale, and the area under the curve was 0.75 (P < .001) for the Cubbin-Jackson scale and 0.76 (P < .001) for the Braden scale. These findings show acceptable construct validity for both scales. high risk maternity icd 10