Cited by 42Pressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Constructing Inpatient Pressure Injury Prediction Models Using Machine Learning Techniques

Hu, Ya-Han, Lee, Yi-Lien, Kang, Ming-Feng, Lee, Pei-Ju·2020·CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing

Abstract

The incidence rate of pressure injury is a critical nursing quality indicator in clinic care; consequently, factors causing pressure injury are diverse and complex. The early prevention of pressure injury and monitoring of these complex high-risk factors are critical to reduce the patients' pain, prevent further surgical treatment, avoid prolonged hospital stay, decrease the risk of wound infection, and lower associated medical costs and expenses. Although a number of risk assessment scales of pressure injury have been adopted in various countries, their criteria are set for specific populations, which may not be suitable for the medical care systems of other countries. This study constructs three prediction models of inpatient pressure injury using machine learning techniques, including decision tree, logistic regression, and random forest. A total of 11 838 inpatient records were collected, and 30 sets of training samples were adopted for data analysis in the experiment. The experimental results and evaluations of the models suggest that the prediction model built using random forest had most favorable classification performance of 0.845. The critical risk factors for pressure injury identified in this study were skin integrity, systolic blood pressure, expression ability, capillary refill time, and level of consciousness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/cin.0000000000000604

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ML identification of patients with a high risk of pressure ulcers or falls can trigger CDS for nursing interventions.

    “For example, ML identification of patients with a high risk of pressure ulcers51,52 or falls53 can trigger CDS for nursing interventions.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hu, Y.-H., Lee, Y.-L., Kang, M.-F., & Lee, P.-J.
Affiliations
National Chung Cheng University (TW)
Venue
CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing
Published
2020-03-20
Volume
38
Issue
8
Pages
415-423
ISSN
  • 1538-2931 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-9774
OpenAlex
W3012635008
Cited by
42
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6
FWCI
10.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • CIN Computers Informatics Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
pressure ulcers, pressure ulcer prediction, hospitalized patients, risk factors, risk assessment scale, random forest, decision tree, logistic regression, skin integrity, capillary refill time, level of consciousness, systolic blood pressure, expression skills
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Pressure Ulcer, Forecasting, Humans, Chi-Square Distribution, Linear Models, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review