Tool and Resource Evaluation Template - Department of Health

More documents

Recommendations

Info

equirements Yes No Unknown Not applicable Administration details If applicable, please state how extensive any training is, and what resources are required: How long does the resource take to use? 0-5 mins 5-15 mins 15-25mins 25mins + Can the resource be used as a standalone, or must it be used in conjunction with other tools, resources, and procedures? Standalone Must be used with other resources, please specify: Can be used with other tools, please specify: Data collection and analysis Are additional resources required to collect and analyse data from the resource? Yes No Unknown Not applicable If applicable, please state any special resources required (e.g. computer software): Sensitivity and specificity Sensitivity is the proportion of people that will be correctly identified by the tool. Specificity is the probability that an individual who does not have the condition being tested for will be correctly identified as negative. Has the sensitivity and specificity of the resource been reported? Yes No Unknown Not applicable If applicable, please state what has been reported: Initial studies reported 83 - 100% sensitivity and 64-90% specificity. In subsequent studies, sensitivity has ranged from 22 – 89% and specificity has ranged from 56 – 100% (Defloor & Grypdonck, 2004). Face Validity Reliability Does the resource appear to meet the intended purpose? Yes No Unknown Not applicable Reliability is the extent to which the tool’s measurements remain consistent over repeated tests of the same subject under identical conditions. Inter-rater reliability measures whether independent assessors will give similar scores under similar conditions. Has the reliability of the resource been reported? Yes No Unknown Not applicable If applicable, please state what has been reported: Percentage agreement of up to 88% was achieved and correlational measures of reliability were excellent when used by a registered nurse (r = 0.99). However, Raycroft-Malone (2000) argues that the reliability has not been properly assessed. Bergstrom and Braden recommended that that registered nurses use the tool. Scores less reliable when the tool was used by less qualified staff. Strengths What are the strengths of the resource? Is the resource easy to understand and use? Are instructions provided on how to use the resource? Is the resource visually well presented (images, colour, font type/ size)? Does the resource use older friendly terminology (where relevant), avoiding jargon? Please state any other known strengths, using dot points: • User friendly and quick. • Reliable when used by nursing staff. • In common usage in Australia and USA. • Validity compares well with Norton and Waterlow scales. Limitations What are the limitations of the tool/resource? Is the tool/resource difficult to understand and use? Are instructions provided on how to use the tool/resource? Is the tool/resource poorly presented (images, colour, font type/ size)? Does the tool/resource use difficult to understand jargon? Please state any other known limitations, using dot points: • Reliability is reduced when not used by nursing staff. • Experienced nurses should conduct the risk assessment (Papanikolaou et al., 2007). • Critical cut-off score is disputable (Papanikolaou et al., 2007). References and further reading Supporting references and associated reading. 1. Australian Wound Management Association Clinical Practice Guidelines for the prediction
and prevention of pressure ulcers. Available at: http://www.awma.com.au/publications/2007/cpgpppu_v_full.pdf 2. Health Services Technology Assessment Test - National Library of Medicine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat2.chapter.4409 3. Braden B & Bergstrom N. A conceptual scheme for the study of etiology of pressure sores. Rehabilitation Nursing. 1987;12:8-16. 4. Defloor T & Grypdonck M. Validation of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: a critique. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2004;48:613-621. 5. Papanikolaou P, Lyne P & Anthony D. Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcers: A methodological review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2007;44:285-296. 6. Raycroft-Malone J. Pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention. Technical reporting. 2000 RCN Publishing, London.
Page 1: Tool and Resource Evaluation Templa

Tool and Resource Evaluation Template - Department of Health

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?