Case Study of Nursing tool

0 Comment

According to his next of kin (his daughter) he is usually fit and well, and leads a reasonably healthy lifestyle. Mr A is profoundly deaf, and uses sign language and lip reading to communicate.
Due to his prolonged immobility Mr A is susceptible to tissue damage. Because of his condition an adapted Waterlow (1985) risk assessment is carried out regularly to manage the risk to his skin integrity.
There three scales used to measure the risk of developing pressure ulcer. Braden, Norton and Waterlow, however, none of these three tools satisfactorily measure ulcer development for a hospital patient (The Royal College for Nursing, 2005, p. 34). One reason for this is lack of prognosis in the developing these tests. When all methods have similar lack of precision then Waterlow is used for its ease of use. Philip Woodrow is not very supportive of using Waterlow (1995) as it is “now rather dated” (p. 110). Another study for pressure ulcers prevention and treatment by Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York, concluded that there is no “best buy” equipment that can be recommended (Cullum, Ciliska, Haynes &amp. Marks, 2013). Sussman and Jensen (2007) suggest that all three scales. Braden, Norton and Waterlow, are effective. they are “validated risk assessment instruments” (Sussman &amp. Jensen, 2007, p. 346). A word of caution goes with this justification. The NICE (2005) guideline consider risk assessment tools like Waterlow (1988, 2005) and Braden (1987) as “aide memoire”. nurses must not solely rely on these tools (Iggulden et al., 2009, p. 192). These tools do not replace clinical judgement (Ousey &amp. McIntosh, 2008, p. 171).
Despite the fact that the card is outdated, it is still very useful today. The literature review suggests using both formal and informal methods to assess the risk of PU. It is also useful in the sense that it allows the card score to compare with