Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42135227›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2026

Evaluating Pressure Ulcer Risk With PURPOSE T in Acute Care-Inter-Rater Reliability Between Registered Nurses and Assistant Nurses.

Ulrika Källman, Kerstin Ulin, Lisa Hultin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ulrika KällmanDepartment of Research, Education and Innovation, Södra Älvsborg Hospital, Borås, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2975-6827
Kerstin UlinInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1737-5039
Lisa HultinDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8270-8560

Funding

Local Research and Development Council Södra Älvsborg VGFOUSA-964441Local Research and Development Council Södra Älvsborg VGFOUSA-977213Local Research and Development Council Södra Älvsborg VGFOUSA-990061
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluated the inter-rater reliability and usability of the Swedish version of the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE T) when used by both registered nurses and assistant nurses. Although previous validation studies involved only registered nurses, assistant nurses often perform these assessments in practice. The study was conducted in three acute care hospitals in Sweden between October 2022 and September 2023, involving 117 patients. In pairs, eight registered nurses and eight assistant nurses independently assessed patients using PURPOSE T in paper format. The percentage agreement between the registered nurses and assistant nurses was 86.6% (n = 97/112). The corresponding simple kappa statistic was 0.69 (95% CI 0.55-0.84); the PABAK kappa statistic was 0.73 (95% CI 0.61-0.86). Both registered nurses and assistant nurses found the tool generally easy to use, though some items in Step 2 were reported as challenging. While the study indicated good inter-rater reliability and PURPOSE T was perceived as user-friendly by both groups, education and training should be prioritised when implementing the instrument in routine care to optimise its use. A digital application may provide more effective facilitation and guidance during the assessment compared with a paper-based version.

Indexed as

NursesPressure UlcerAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentSwedennursespressure ulcerprimary preventionreproducibility of resultsrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID42135227
PMCPMC13175763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.