Constructing Inpatient Pressure Injury Prediction Models Using Machine Learning Techniques
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Potential uses of AI for perioperative nursing handoffs: a qualitative study (2023) · cites this paper as [52]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The role of artificial intelligence in enhancing clinical nursing care: A scoping review
Ng, Z. Q. P., Ling, L. Y. J., Chew, H. S. J., & Lau, Y. (2022) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1111/jonm.13425 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Hwang, G.-J., Tang, K.-Y., & Tu, Y.-F. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2022.2086579 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Potential uses of AI for perioperative nursing handoffs: a qualitative study
King, C. R., Shambe, A., & Abraham, J. (2023) · JAMIA Open · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad015 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
- 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