Cynthia Garvan, PhD

Staff at the Malcolm Randall VAMC (MRVAMC) outpatient pain clinic in Gainesville, Florida, found that procedures to reduce a patient’s pain could initially cause pain and anxiety. Typical nursing care plans involved measures to reduce anxiety in patients undergoing interventional procedures expected to produce pain, including identifying and reinforcing coping strategies, providing reassurance and comfort, and giving patients clear explanations slowly and calmly. The MRVAMC nursing staff therefore also advocated to add music therapy to the existing plan.

Background

As part of a quality improvement (QI) project, the authors conducted a literature search to find scientific evidence for the use of music therapy. Multiple medical databases were analyzed to find studies that included total time, dose of sedative medications, pain scores, patient experience, and willingness to repeat the same procedure in the future with use of music vs no music.¹ The literature review revealed that music therapy demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing anxiety and pain, supporting relaxation, reducing sedation medication during procedures, and improving patient satisfaction.

As a result of the literature search the authors conducted a prospective, randomized controlled study to investigate music therapy as an adjunct intervention during painful procedures.

Radiofrequency Lesioning

One of the more common (and most painful) procedures performed at MRVAMC is radiofrequency lesioning (RFL).The procedure uses electrical pulses to block nerves for pain relief. Using fluoroscopy, the physician inserts a needle adjacent to the nerve that innervates the facet joint. The sensory and motor nerves are stimulated, causing a tingling or buzzing sensation and tapping. Once the tip of the needle is placed in the correct location, electrical pulses (small radiofrequency currents) are passed through the needle. A lesion is formed that temporarily interrupts the pain messages that the nerve sends to the brain. The procedure can take between30 and 60 minutes, which is longer than most pain clinic procedures.

Radiofrequency lesioning controls pain caused by degenerative disc disease, facet arthropathy, sacroiliac joints, stellate ganglions, and other nerve conditions. Due to the length of the RFL procedure, patients may experience pain and anxiety (as well as other complications, such as vasovagal responses).

The clinic staff anticipated that there would be 20 RFL procedures scheduled per week and selected it as the study procedure for 3 reasons: procedure length, high level of pain, and frequency performed.

After receiving approval from the University of Florida Institutional Review Board and VA Research and Development, the MRVAMC pain clinic initiated the study from September 2013 to April 2014. The purpose of the study was to measure the effects of music on patient’s self-reported anxiety and pain levels before and after nonsedating lumbar RFL.

Methods

Study Design

Veterans aged between 21 and 88 years who were scheduled to return for lumbar RFL and who did not require sedation were invited to participate. Sixty participants consented. The music group had 21 men and 2 women. The no-music group had 19 men and 2 women. Table 1 summarizes descriptive data. Table 2 describes the results of the comparison analysis. Patients were randomly assigned to either the music intervention group or no-music g

roup. Before and after the procedure, participants in both groups were queried on pain and anxiety levels, using a visual analog scale (VAS).

The study tools included the global anxiety VAS (GA-VAS) for pain and anxiety and a yes/no self-reported question, “Did music help?” for participants in the music group. Evaluation of the GA-VAS demonstrated reliability and validity and were patient friendly.^2,3 Pain was recorded using a Likert scale of 0 for no pain and 10 for severe pain. Anxiety was recorded using a Likert scale of 0 for no anxiety and 4 for extreme anxiety.

Study subjects were recruited from patients who were on a maintenance lumbar RFL schedule, did not require sedation, and were willing to participate. If sedation was required, the patient was excluded from the study. Returning patients scheduled for RFL were informed about the music study and asked whether they were interested in participating. If they agreed, the study was explained in full, and informed consent was obtained prior to the day of their scheduled procedure. After obtaining informed consent, participants were asked to choose a music genre from 3 options: easy listening, jazz, or classical. Participants received a sealed envelope identifying their group (30 envelopes were created for each group) to be opened by the procedure nurse on the day of the procedure.^4,5

Sixty participants consented to participate in the study. Of these 60 patients, 44 were studied. The 16 patients who did not participate had either a change in procedure or did not show for the appointment.

 

Data Collection

On procedure day, all participants completed the anxiety scale as well as a VAS pain scale (which is the MRVAMC standard of care), preoperatively and postprocedure. Envelopes were opened prior to going into the procedure room to prevent prior knowledge of who was assigned to the music group. Participants in the music intervention group listened to their preselected music on a portable CD player in the procedure room. The music was played softly so the patient could still hear and respond to the physicians instructions during the procedure. The no-music group received everything that the music intervention group received except for music (standard care throughout procedure, which consisted of nurse monitoring, measures to reduce fear and anxiety, and comfort measures). Procedures were performed with local anesthesia; neither group received moderate sedation.

Gender, age, and self-reported pain scores (before and after the lumber RFL procedure) were recorded in the patient’s chart and entered into the study database. Patients in both groups were queried before and after the procedure using the VAS to measure their pain and anxiety levels. Participants in the music intervention group were asked whether they felt that the music helped. They also were asked to provide feedback about their experience. Data were stored in locked filing cabinets, and all forms were de-identified.

Statistical Analysis

SAS version 9.2 (Cary, NC) was used for all analyses. Data were inspected for out-of-range values. The Fisher exact test was used to compare groups on categorical measures. An independent sample t test was used to compare groups on the age variable. Difference scores (formed by subtracting the after score from the before score) were analyzed using paired t tests. Analysis of covariance was used to test for significant group differences on the outcome variables of pain and anxiety with group as the independent variable and the preprocedure measure as the covariate. The level of significance was set at .05, and all testing was 2 sided.

Results

Of the 60 consenting patients, 44 participated in the study.Twenty-three were randomized to the music intervention and 21 to the no-music control group. Both pain and anxiety were significantly reduced (P < .0001) in the total sample (n = 44). The mean (SD) decrease in pain for all participants was 2.80 points (2.31) on a VAS of 0 to 10 and 0.86 points (0.93) decrease in anxiety. In the music intervention group, the mean decrease in pain and anxiety was 3.22 (2.66) and 1.00 (0.85), respectively. In the no-music group, the mean decrease in pain and anxiety was 2.33 (1.80) and 0.69 (1.00), respectively. The magnitude of pain decrease was larger in the music intervention group; however, the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Discussion

Although there was not a statistically significant difference in pain or anxiety reduction due to group assignment, a 2-point reduction in self-reported pain or anxiety may be considered clinically important and has been supported in older studies.⁶ Importantly, 87% of participants in the music intervention group reported that listening to music was helpful during the procedure (Figure 1).

Anxiety levels were not as high as expected when measured before and after the procedure, perhaps due to improvements in patient education and continuity of care (Figure 2). Since all participants were returning patients, they already were familiar with the procedure and the staff. Staff turnover rate is very low at this clinic, which may have contributed to the low anxiety rates among participants at baseline. Other contributing factors included good communication, expert technique, and teamwork.

During the study, few negative comments were noted. One participant did not hear the music due to faulty equipment setup. Another participant commented that the physician doing the procedure made negative remarks about the music the patient selected. A third participant commented that the music was too loud, and he was unable to hear the doctor’s instructions, indicating a need for guidelines.

There were many positive comments by participants in the music intervention group. Nurses reported comments such as “The music really helps”; “The music was great, but rock ‘n’ roll would be better”; and “Can I bring my own [music] next time?” Many patients returning for procedures frequently asked, “Where is the music?”

Limitations

Of the 60 consenting patients, only 44 participated, possibly lowering the power of the study to detect significant findings. During the study, the physician staff was reduced, resulting in fewer RFLs performed and causing the study to take longer to conduct and with fewer opportunities to recruit participants.

The CD players used for the study were old, and because earbuds could not be used, volume was difficult to modulate consistently. Earbuds were not used because patient participation was required during the procedure. Also, having only 3 music genres to choose from limited the participant’s choice.

 

Conclusion

Research supporting the use of music therapy to increase patient comfort is widely accepted and practiced.⁷ Music therapy is readily available, low risk, inexpensive, and does not require intense training by staff. It may reduce the need for moderate sedation and improve the overall patient experience. During the study, the MRVAMC nursing staff gained a greater appreciation of evidence-based practice; staff are more engaged in QI, based on their personal involvement in research.

Because 87% of the music therapy participants reported that music was helpful, the MRVAMC pain clinic plans to implement music therapy as a standard of care during RFL procedures and all procedure appointments. Music therapy may help reduce pain and anxiety during painful procedures. The goal is to continually increase patient satisfaction and overall procedure experience through integration of evidence-based practice.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the study team who helped consent participants, perform the experiment, and gather and analyze data. They also acknowledge the pain clinic physicians, Dr. Egle Bavry and Dr. Heidi Goldstein, for their support throughout the study. Special thanks goes to Daniel Prince for his technical support.

Staff at the Malcolm Randall VAMC (MRVAMC) outpatient pain clinic in Gainesville, Florida, found that procedures to reduce a patient’s pain could initially cause pain and anxiety. Typical nursing care plans involved measures to reduce anxiety in patients undergoing interventional procedures expected to produce pain, including identifying and reinforcing coping strategies, providing reassurance and comfort, and giving patients clear explanations slowly and calmly. The MRVAMC nursing staff therefore also advocated to add music therapy to the existing plan.

Background

As part of a quality improvement (QI) project, the authors conducted a literature search to find scientific evidence for the use of music therapy. Multiple medical databases were analyzed to find studies that included total time, dose of sedative medications, pain scores, patient experience, and willingness to repeat the same procedure in the future with use of music vs no music.¹ The literature review revealed that music therapy demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing anxiety and pain, supporting relaxation, reducing sedation medication during procedures, and improving patient satisfaction.

As a result of the literature search the authors conducted a prospective, randomized controlled study to investigate music therapy as an adjunct intervention during painful procedures.

Radiofrequency Lesioning

One of the more common (and most painful) procedures performed at MRVAMC is radiofrequency lesioning (RFL).The procedure uses electrical pulses to block nerves for pain relief. Using fluoroscopy, the physician inserts a needle adjacent to the nerve that innervates the facet joint. The sensory and motor nerves are stimulated, causing a tingling or buzzing sensation and tapping. Once the tip of the needle is placed in the correct location, electrical pulses (small radiofrequency currents) are passed through the needle. A lesion is formed that temporarily interrupts the pain messages that the nerve sends to the brain. The procedure can take between30 and 60 minutes, which is longer than most pain clinic procedures.

Radiofrequency lesioning controls pain caused by degenerative disc disease, facet arthropathy, sacroiliac joints, stellate ganglions, and other nerve conditions. Due to the length of the RFL procedure, patients may experience pain and anxiety (as well as other complications, such as vasovagal responses).

The clinic staff anticipated that there would be 20 RFL procedures scheduled per week and selected it as the study procedure for 3 reasons: procedure length, high level of pain, and frequency performed.

After receiving approval from the University of Florida Institutional Review Board and VA Research and Development, the MRVAMC pain clinic initiated the study from September 2013 to April 2014. The purpose of the study was to measure the effects of music on patient’s self-reported anxiety and pain levels before and after nonsedating lumbar RFL.

Methods

Study Design

Veterans aged between 21 and 88 years who were scheduled to return for lumbar RFL and who did not require sedation were invited to participate. Sixty participants consented. The music group had 21 men and 2 women. The no-music group had 19 men and 2 women. Table 1 summarizes descriptive data. Table 2 describes the results of the comparison analysis. Patients were randomly assigned to either the music intervention group or no-music g

roup. Before and after the procedure, participants in both groups were queried on pain and anxiety levels, using a visual analog scale (VAS).

The study tools included the global anxiety VAS (GA-VAS) for pain and anxiety and a yes/no self-reported question, “Did music help?” for participants in the music group. Evaluation of the GA-VAS demonstrated reliability and validity and were patient friendly.^2,3 Pain was recorded using a Likert scale of 0 for no pain and 10 for severe pain. Anxiety was recorded using a Likert scale of 0 for no anxiety and 4 for extreme anxiety.

Study subjects were recruited from patients who were on a maintenance lumbar RFL schedule, did not require sedation, and were willing to participate. If sedation was required, the patient was excluded from the study. Returning patients scheduled for RFL were informed about the music study and asked whether they were interested in participating. If they agreed, the study was explained in full, and informed consent was obtained prior to the day of their scheduled procedure. After obtaining informed consent, participants were asked to choose a music genre from 3 options: easy listening, jazz, or classical. Participants received a sealed envelope identifying their group (30 envelopes were created for each group) to be opened by the procedure nurse on the day of the procedure.^4,5

Sixty participants consented to participate in the study. Of these 60 patients, 44 were studied. The 16 patients who did not participate had either a change in procedure or did not show for the appointment.

 

Data Collection

On procedure day, all participants completed the anxiety scale as well as a VAS pain scale (which is the MRVAMC standard of care), preoperatively and postprocedure. Envelopes were opened prior to going into the procedure room to prevent prior knowledge of who was assigned to the music group. Participants in the music intervention group listened to their preselected music on a portable CD player in the procedure room. The music was played softly so the patient could still hear and respond to the physicians instructions during the procedure. The no-music group received everything that the music intervention group received except for music (standard care throughout procedure, which consisted of nurse monitoring, measures to reduce fear and anxiety, and comfort measures). Procedures were performed with local anesthesia; neither group received moderate sedation.

Gender, age, and self-reported pain scores (before and after the lumber RFL procedure) were recorded in the patient’s chart and entered into the study database. Patients in both groups were queried before and after the procedure using the VAS to measure their pain and anxiety levels. Participants in the music intervention group were asked whether they felt that the music helped. They also were asked to provide feedback about their experience. Data were stored in locked filing cabinets, and all forms were de-identified.

Statistical Analysis

SAS version 9.2 (Cary, NC) was used for all analyses. Data were inspected for out-of-range values. The Fisher exact test was used to compare groups on categorical measures. An independent sample t test was used to compare groups on the age variable. Difference scores (formed by subtracting the after score from the before score) were analyzed using paired t tests. Analysis of covariance was used to test for significant group differences on the outcome variables of pain and anxiety with group as the independent variable and the preprocedure measure as the covariate. The level of significance was set at .05, and all testing was 2 sided.

Results

Of the 60 consenting patients, 44 participated in the study.Twenty-three were randomized to the music intervention and 21 to the no-music control group. Both pain and anxiety were significantly reduced (P < .0001) in the total sample (n = 44). The mean (SD) decrease in pain for all participants was 2.80 points (2.31) on a VAS of 0 to 10 and 0.86 points (0.93) decrease in anxiety. In the music intervention group, the mean decrease in pain and anxiety was 3.22 (2.66) and 1.00 (0.85), respectively. In the no-music group, the mean decrease in pain and anxiety was 2.33 (1.80) and 0.69 (1.00), respectively. The magnitude of pain decrease was larger in the music intervention group; however, the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Discussion

Although there was not a statistically significant difference in pain or anxiety reduction due to group assignment, a 2-point reduction in self-reported pain or anxiety may be considered clinically important and has been supported in older studies.⁶ Importantly, 87% of participants in the music intervention group reported that listening to music was helpful during the procedure (Figure 1).

Anxiety levels were not as high as expected when measured before and after the procedure, perhaps due to improvements in patient education and continuity of care (Figure 2). Since all participants were returning patients, they already were familiar with the procedure and the staff. Staff turnover rate is very low at this clinic, which may have contributed to the low anxiety rates among participants at baseline. Other contributing factors included good communication, expert technique, and teamwork.

During the study, few negative comments were noted. One participant did not hear the music due to faulty equipment setup. Another participant commented that the physician doing the procedure made negative remarks about the music the patient selected. A third participant commented that the music was too loud, and he was unable to hear the doctor’s instructions, indicating a need for guidelines.

There were many positive comments by participants in the music intervention group. Nurses reported comments such as “The music really helps”; “The music was great, but rock ‘n’ roll would be better”; and “Can I bring my own [music] next time?” Many patients returning for procedures frequently asked, “Where is the music?”

Limitations

Of the 60 consenting patients, only 44 participated, possibly lowering the power of the study to detect significant findings. During the study, the physician staff was reduced, resulting in fewer RFLs performed and causing the study to take longer to conduct and with fewer opportunities to recruit participants.

The CD players used for the study were old, and because earbuds could not be used, volume was difficult to modulate consistently. Earbuds were not used because patient participation was required during the procedure. Also, having only 3 music genres to choose from limited the participant’s choice.

 

Conclusion

Research supporting the use of music therapy to increase patient comfort is widely accepted and practiced.⁷ Music therapy is readily available, low risk, inexpensive, and does not require intense training by staff. It may reduce the need for moderate sedation and improve the overall patient experience. During the study, the MRVAMC nursing staff gained a greater appreciation of evidence-based practice; staff are more engaged in QI, based on their personal involvement in research.

Because 87% of the music therapy participants reported that music was helpful, the MRVAMC pain clinic plans to implement music therapy as a standard of care during RFL procedures and all procedure appointments. Music therapy may help reduce pain and anxiety during painful procedures. The goal is to continually increase patient satisfaction and overall procedure experience through integration of evidence-based practice.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the study team who helped consent participants, perform the experiment, and gather and analyze data. They also acknowledge the pain clinic physicians, Dr. Egle Bavry and Dr. Heidi Goldstein, for their support throughout the study. Special thanks goes to Daniel Prince for his technical support.

Staff at the Malcolm Randall VAMC (MRVAMC) outpatient pain clinic in Gainesville, Florida, found that procedures to reduce a patient’s pain could initially cause pain and anxiety. Typical nursing care plans involved measures to reduce anxiety in patients undergoing interventional procedures expected to produce pain, including identifying and reinforcing coping strategies, providing reassurance and comfort, and giving patients clear explanations slowly and calmly. The MRVAMC nursing staff therefore also advocated to add music therapy to the existing plan.

Background

As part of a quality improvement (QI) project, the authors conducted a literature search to find scientific evidence for the use of music therapy. Multiple medical databases were analyzed to find studies that included total time, dose of sedative medications, pain scores, patient experience, and willingness to repeat the same procedure in the future with use of music vs no music.¹ The literature review revealed that music therapy demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing anxiety and pain, supporting relaxation, reducing sedation medication during procedures, and improving patient satisfaction.

As a result of the literature search the authors conducted a prospective, randomized controlled study to investigate music therapy as an adjunct intervention during painful procedures.

Radiofrequency Lesioning

One of the more common (and most painful) procedures performed at MRVAMC is radiofrequency lesioning (RFL).The procedure uses electrical pulses to block nerves for pain relief. Using fluoroscopy, the physician inserts a needle adjacent to the nerve that innervates the facet joint. The sensory and motor nerves are stimulated, causing a tingling or buzzing sensation and tapping. Once the tip of the needle is placed in the correct location, electrical pulses (small radiofrequency currents) are passed through the needle. A lesion is formed that temporarily interrupts the pain messages that the nerve sends to the brain. The procedure can take between30 and 60 minutes, which is longer than most pain clinic procedures.

Radiofrequency lesioning controls pain caused by degenerative disc disease, facet arthropathy, sacroiliac joints, stellate ganglions, and other nerve conditions. Due to the length of the RFL procedure, patients may experience pain and anxiety (as well as other complications, such as vasovagal responses).

The clinic staff anticipated that there would be 20 RFL procedures scheduled per week and selected it as the study procedure for 3 reasons: procedure length, high level of pain, and frequency performed.

After receiving approval from the University of Florida Institutional Review Board and VA Research and Development, the MRVAMC pain clinic initiated the study from September 2013 to April 2014. The purpose of the study was to measure the effects of music on patient’s self-reported anxiety and pain levels before and after nonsedating lumbar RFL.

Methods

Study Design

Veterans aged between 21 and 88 years who were scheduled to return for lumbar RFL and who did not require sedation were invited to participate. Sixty participants consented. The music group had 21 men and 2 women. The no-music group had 19 men and 2 women. Table 1 summarizes descriptive data. Table 2 describes the results of the comparison analysis. Patients were randomly assigned to either the music intervention group or no-music g

roup. Before and after the procedure, participants in both groups were queried on pain and anxiety levels, using a visual analog scale (VAS).

The study tools included the global anxiety VAS (GA-VAS) for pain and anxiety and a yes/no self-reported question, “Did music help?” for participants in the music group. Evaluation of the GA-VAS demonstrated reliability and validity and were patient friendly.^2,3 Pain was recorded using a Likert scale of 0 for no pain and 10 for severe pain. Anxiety was recorded using a Likert scale of 0 for no anxiety and 4 for extreme anxiety.

Study subjects were recruited from patients who were on a maintenance lumbar RFL schedule, did not require sedation, and were willing to participate. If sedation was required, the patient was excluded from the study. Returning patients scheduled for RFL were informed about the music study and asked whether they were interested in participating. If they agreed, the study was explained in full, and informed consent was obtained prior to the day of their scheduled procedure. After obtaining informed consent, participants were asked to choose a music genre from 3 options: easy listening, jazz, or classical. Participants received a sealed envelope identifying their group (30 envelopes were created for each group) to be opened by the procedure nurse on the day of the procedure.^4,5

Sixty participants consented to participate in the study. Of these 60 patients, 44 were studied. The 16 patients who did not participate had either a change in procedure or did not show for the appointment.

 

Data Collection

On procedure day, all participants completed the anxiety scale as well as a VAS pain scale (which is the MRVAMC standard of care), preoperatively and postprocedure. Envelopes were opened prior to going into the procedure room to prevent prior knowledge of who was assigned to the music group. Participants in the music intervention group listened to their preselected music on a portable CD player in the procedure room. The music was played softly so the patient could still hear and respond to the physicians instructions during the procedure. The no-music group received everything that the music intervention group received except for music (standard care throughout procedure, which consisted of nurse monitoring, measures to reduce fear and anxiety, and comfort measures). Procedures were performed with local anesthesia; neither group received moderate sedation.

Gender, age, and self-reported pain scores (before and after the lumber RFL procedure) were recorded in the patient’s chart and entered into the study database. Patients in both groups were queried before and after the procedure using the VAS to measure their pain and anxiety levels. Participants in the music intervention group were asked whether they felt that the music helped. They also were asked to provide feedback about their experience. Data were stored in locked filing cabinets, and all forms were de-identified.

Statistical Analysis

SAS version 9.2 (Cary, NC) was used for all analyses. Data were inspected for out-of-range values. The Fisher exact test was used to compare groups on categorical measures. An independent sample t test was used to compare groups on the age variable. Difference scores (formed by subtracting the after score from the before score) were analyzed using paired t tests. Analysis of covariance was used to test for significant group differences on the outcome variables of pain and anxiety with group as the independent variable and the preprocedure measure as the covariate. The level of significance was set at .05, and all testing was 2 sided.

Results

Of the 60 consenting patients, 44 participated in the study.Twenty-three were randomized to the music intervention and 21 to the no-music control group. Both pain and anxiety were significantly reduced (P < .0001) in the total sample (n = 44). The mean (SD) decrease in pain for all participants was 2.80 points (2.31) on a VAS of 0 to 10 and 0.86 points (0.93) decrease in anxiety. In the music intervention group, the mean decrease in pain and anxiety was 3.22 (2.66) and 1.00 (0.85), respectively. In the no-music group, the mean decrease in pain and anxiety was 2.33 (1.80) and 0.69 (1.00), respectively. The magnitude of pain decrease was larger in the music intervention group; however, the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Discussion

Although there was not a statistically significant difference in pain or anxiety reduction due to group assignment, a 2-point reduction in self-reported pain or anxiety may be considered clinically important and has been supported in older studies.⁶ Importantly, 87% of participants in the music intervention group reported that listening to music was helpful during the procedure (Figure 1).

Anxiety levels were not as high as expected when measured before and after the procedure, perhaps due to improvements in patient education and continuity of care (Figure 2). Since all participants were returning patients, they already were familiar with the procedure and the staff. Staff turnover rate is very low at this clinic, which may have contributed to the low anxiety rates among participants at baseline. Other contributing factors included good communication, expert technique, and teamwork.

During the study, few negative comments were noted. One participant did not hear the music due to faulty equipment setup. Another participant commented that the physician doing the procedure made negative remarks about the music the patient selected. A third participant commented that the music was too loud, and he was unable to hear the doctor’s instructions, indicating a need for guidelines.

There were many positive comments by participants in the music intervention group. Nurses reported comments such as “The music really helps”; “The music was great, but rock ‘n’ roll would be better”; and “Can I bring my own [music] next time?” Many patients returning for procedures frequently asked, “Where is the music?”

Limitations

Of the 60 consenting patients, only 44 participated, possibly lowering the power of the study to detect significant findings. During the study, the physician staff was reduced, resulting in fewer RFLs performed and causing the study to take longer to conduct and with fewer opportunities to recruit participants.

The CD players used for the study were old, and because earbuds could not be used, volume was difficult to modulate consistently. Earbuds were not used because patient participation was required during the procedure. Also, having only 3 music genres to choose from limited the participant’s choice.

 

Conclusion

Research supporting the use of music therapy to increase patient comfort is widely accepted and practiced.⁷ Music therapy is readily available, low risk, inexpensive, and does not require intense training by staff. It may reduce the need for moderate sedation and improve the overall patient experience. During the study, the MRVAMC nursing staff gained a greater appreciation of evidence-based practice; staff are more engaged in QI, based on their personal involvement in research.

Because 87% of the music therapy participants reported that music was helpful, the MRVAMC pain clinic plans to implement music therapy as a standard of care during RFL procedures and all procedure appointments. Music therapy may help reduce pain and anxiety during painful procedures. The goal is to continually increase patient satisfaction and overall procedure experience through integration of evidence-based practice.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the study team who helped consent participants, perform the experiment, and gather and analyze data. They also acknowledge the pain clinic physicians, Dr. Egle Bavry and Dr. Heidi Goldstein, for their support throughout the study. Special thanks goes to Daniel Prince for his technical support.

A pressure ulcer (PrU) is a localized injury to the skin and/or deep tissues that is due to pressure, friction, or shearing forces. Pressure ulcers are strongly associated with serious comorbidities, particularly inadequate nutrition and immobility.^1,2 Pressure ulcers increase hospital costs significantly. In the U.S., PrU care is about $11 billion annually and a cost of between $2,000 and $21,410 per individual PrU.^3-5

The impact of nosocomial PrUs remains a key health and economic concern of acute care facilities worldwide. In the U.S., about 2.5 million inpatients annually develop some degree of a PrU during their hospital stay. The reported incidence rates range from 0.4% to 38%.^3,6 Each year about 60,000 people die of complications of a PrU.^3,6,7 Inadequate nutrition is a critical factor that contributes to the incidence of PrUs.^8-12 Consequences of inadequate nutrition have included alterations in skin integrity resulting in PrUs, longer hospital stays, increased costs of care, and higher rates of mortality.⁹ As a patient’s nutritional status becomes compromised, the likelihood of developing a PrU increases, especially if an individual is immobilized.^7,9-11,13

Braden Scale History

The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk was developed by Barbara Braden, PhD, RN, and Nancy Bergstrom, PhD, RN, in 1987.^14,15 Originally established for use in long-term care facilities, the scale is recommended by the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel in its clinical practice guidelinesand is the most frequently used risk assessment tool by nurses in acute care facilities worldwide.¹

The scale is composed of 6 factors: sensory perception, moisture, activity, mobility, friction and shear, and nutrition.¹⁴ Each factor is scored on a scale of 1 to 4 points (friction and shear are scored on a point scale of only 1 to 3) for a total possible score of 6 to 23 points (the lower the score, the greater the assumed PrU risk).

The Braden nutrition subscale relies heavily on recording observed or patient self-reported eating habits. It is typically documented by nurses who assess the daily intake of meals: recording a score of 4 if the patient’s meal intake is excellent (eats most of every meal), 3 if the patient’s intake is adequate (eats more than half of most meals), 2 if the patient’s intake is probably inadequate (rarely eats a complete meal), and 1 if a patient’s intake is very poor (never eats a complete meal) (Table 1).¹⁴

Historically, the Braden scale is reported to have good reliability when used by registered nurses as a risk prediction tool.^14,16 A recent review also reported high interrater reliability of the Braden scale total score among nurses, nursing assistants, and graduate assistants.¹⁷ However, other studies suggest certain subscales (such as sensory and nutrition) may have very low interrater reliability among nurses and poor PrU predictability.^18,19 To date, there are no known studies evaluating the agreement of the Braden nutrition subscale primarily used by nurses and the VA Nutrition Classification Scheme (VANCS) used by dietitians.

The VA standard of care recommends that PrU risk assessments are documented for all hospitalized veterans within 24 hours of admission, daily, with transfers or discharges, and when there is a status change in the patient. In addition, nutritional assessments by dietitians (using the VANCS) are encouraged within 24 hours of acute care hospitalization.²⁰

The VANCS performed by dietitians consists of 4 classifications: no nutritional compromise, mild nutritional compromise, moderate nutritional compromise, and severenutritional compromise. These classifications are based on well-documented “comprehensive approaches to defining nutritional status that uses multiple parameters” including nutrition history, weight (body mass index and weight loss), diagnoses, diet (and diet orders), brief physical assessment, and preliminary laboratory data (serum albumin/pre-albumin and total lymphocyte count).^20,21

The predictive ability of a risk assessment tool is critical to its clinical effectiveness in determining a clinical outcome.¹⁷ The Braden scale has been used for more than 30 years in various settings without any significant change to the scale or subscales. In a 2012 study, 4 medical factors were found to be more predictive of PrUs than the Braden scale total score in a sample of 213 acutely ill adult veterans.⁸ By performing a retrospective study using logistic regression predictive models, severe nutritional compromise (as identified by a dietitian), pneumonia, candidiasis, and surgery were identified as stronger predictors of PrU risk than was the Braden total score.⁸

With malnutrition as one of the most significant predictive factors in PrU risk, it is critical to determine whether discrepancies exist between the Braden nutrition subscale used primarily by nurses and the VANCS used by dietitians. Hence, the overall purpose of this study was to determine the level of agreement between the Braden nutrition subscale scores documented by nurses and the VANCS used by dietitians and examine the relationship of these assessments with PrU development.

 

Methods

The parent study was approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board before data collection. This secondary analysis of the parent study examined data already collected by Cowan and colleagues, which demonstrated the significance of nutritional compromise in PrU risk.⁸

The de-identified data subset consisted of general demographics, hospital length of stay, specific diagnoses, Braden scores, PrU status, and registered dietician nutritional classification data from 213 acutely ill veterans admitted to North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System (NF/SGVHS) in Florida for more than 3 days between January and July 2008.⁸ The sample consisted of 100 veterans with nosocomial PrUs and 113 veterans without PrUs during their admission.

Scoring

Using the de-identified dataset, the variables of interest (VANCS, Braden nutrition subscale score, and the presence/absence of PrU) were coded. The VANCS was given a corresponding score ranging from 1 to 4 (1, severe nutritional compromise; 2, moderate nutritional compromise; 3, mild nutritional compromise; and 4, no nutritional compromise). The Braden nutrition subscale ranged from 1 to 4 (1 very poor nutrition; 2, probably inadequate nutrition; 3, adequate nutrition; and 4, excellent nutrition). PrU development was coded as 0, no PrU development and 1, PrU development. All nutritional assessments had been recorded in the electronic health record before any PrU reported in the parent study.

Statistical Analysis

After coding the variables of interest, the data were transferred into SAS v 9.4 (Cary, NC). The data collected compared VANCS and Braden nutrition subscale results. In addition, the authors examined the agreement between the score assigned to the VANCS and Braden nutrition subscale results with a weighted κ analysis. Further, to determine the relationship between PrU and each of the nutrition assessment methods, chi-square or Fisher exact tests were conducted. The level of significance was set at .05.

Additionally, the authors computed sensitivity and specificity of the Braden nutrition subscale using the VANCS as the gold standard. The severe and moderately compromised categories of the VANCS combined to form the high-risk category, and the mild-to-no compromise categories were combined to form the low-risk category. The Braden nutrition subscale was similarly dichotomized with the very poor and probably inadequate intake forming the high-risk category and the adequate and excellent intake forming the low-risk category. Sensitivity and specificity of the Braden were then calculated.

Results

Nursing assessments using the Braden nutrition subscale were completed on 213 patients whose mean age (SD) was 71.0 (10.6) years. The VANCS documented by dietitians was completed on 205 patients. For 7 patients, a nutrition assessment was documented only by the Braden nutrition subscale and not the VANCS. Most of the patients were male (97%, n = 206), and white (81.4%, n = 171). The weighted κ statistic used to measure agreement between the Braden nutrition subscale and the VANCS was .17 (95% confidence interval = .07, .28).

Landis and colleagues suggest that a κ value of .17 may be interpreted as “fair” agreement.²² Figure 1 shows the agreement seen between the Braden nutrition subscale and VANCS. There was no strong agreement identified. Within each VANCS (severe compromise, moderate compromise, mild compromise, or no compromise), the numbers of patients rated as 1 (very poor intake), 2 (intake probably inadequate), or 3 (intake adequate) on the Braden nutrition subscale is given.

There were 39 patients determined to be severely compromised by dietitians. Of these 39 patients, only 13 also were deemed to have very poor intake by the Braden nutrition subscale.

Figure 2 shows the percentage of patients who developed a PrU during hospitalization among different measures of Braden nutrition subscale vs VANCS. In Figure 2, nutritional categories 1, 2, and 3 correspond to very poor intake (Braden)/severe compromise (VANCS), probably inadequate intake (Braden)/moderate compromise (VANCS), and adequate intake (Braden)/mild compromise (VANCS), respectively. There were 3 patients who had a no compromise VANCS; none of these had a PrU, so their data are not represented in Figure 2.

There were no patients with a rating of excellent intake on the Braden nutrition subscale. Presence of a PrU was not significantly related to Braden nutrition subscale measures (chi-square test, P = .19). However, the presence of a PrU was significantly related to VANCS (Fisher exact test, P < .0001). As shown in Figure 2, higher PrU risk was related to higher nutritional compromise as determined by VANCS; 79% of those determined to be severely compromised by VANCS had PrUs compared with 48% of those determined to have very poor intake by the Braden nutrition subscale.

​

Discussion

Findings from this study indicate that the VANCS documented by dietitians is superior in assessing nutritional risk and predicting the development of PrUs in acutely ill hospitalized veterans compared with the Braden nutrition subscale. This study also shows that the Braden nutrition subscale did not accurately predict PrU development in acutely ill veterans. This finding concurs with the Serpa and Santos study in which the Braden nutrition subscale scores were not predictive for PrU development in hospitalized patients.²³ They found that serum albumin levels and subjective global nutrition assessments were superior nutritional predictors of PrU development. These findings suggest modifications or enhancements are needed to address how nurses assess nutritional risk for PrUs in hospitalized patients.

 

One possible explanation for the findings in this study is that the nutrition subscale of the Braden tool asks the assessing clinician to evaluate the amount of food intake the patient is currently taking in for their usual meals. This assessment is highly subjective and speculative and does not account for recent intake fluctuations or weight loss. By comparison, the VANCS is more comprehensive in its ability to assess nutritional compromise based on multiple factors, such as recent weight loss, laboratory indices, body habitus, dentition, and swallowing ability.²⁰ The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel suggests that following an acute care admission, a patient receive a consult from a dietitian if the health care provider suspects that the patient may be nutritionally compromised.¹ The study findings demonstrate the utility of the VANCS as predictive of PrU risk.

Unfortunately, the authors have learned that the VANCS may be phased out soon, and many VA facilities are no longer using it. Findings from this study and other recent scientific literature suggest that all inpatients may benefit from nutritional assessments by dietitians. When performed, dietitian assessments provide the basis for more accurate nursing assessment of nutritional risk and targeted interventions. Nursing professionals should be encouraged to review the dietitian assessment and consultation notes and to incorporate this information into a more comprehensive PrU prevention and treatment plan.

Interestingly, in spite of those assessed to have severe nutritional compromise by dietitian assessment (n = 39), very few of these patients (n = 4) had an ICD-9 diagnosis related to malnutrition (ICD-9 codes, 262, 273.8, 269.9, 263.9) entered in their chart for that hospitalization. This observation suggests that 88% of patients with severe nutritional compromise were not appropriately coded at discharge. Improper coding has implications for researchers using ICD-9 diagnosis codes at discharge for accurate analysis of risk factors as well as for health care providers who may look at coded diagnoses information in the charts when considering comorbid conditions for health management.

This study highlights the importance of nutritional status as a risk factor for PrU development. Reasons suggested for nutritional status seeming to be the most significant correlate to PrUs in the acute care setting include the following: decreased protein alters oncotic pressure, making tissue prone to edema; decreases in subcutaneous fat reduce protection from pressure effects; nutritional compromise alters cellular transport of nutrients and waste and makes tissue cells more vulnerable to deformation and physical stresses; and lactate (a by-product of anaerobic glycolysis) or any other metabolic by-product of malnutrition could cause biochemical stress, and tissue cells can die faster as a result of the increased plasma membrane permeability.^7,24-26

Limitations

This study was limited to 1 sample of veterans hospitalized in the 2 acute care facilities of NF/SGVHS and the use of a retrospective chart review. As a result, further research is necessary to establish generalizability to other acute care settings and high-risk populations. In spite of these limitations, this and other studies highlight the need for revision of the Braden scale, specifically the nutritional subscale, to lessen the ambiguity seen between dietitian and nursing assessments while also increasing the accuracy in determining a patient’s nutrition risk of PrU development during hospitalization.

Conclusion

These findings provide evidence that dietitians’ documentation of the VANCS related to nutritional compromise are superior to current nutritional risk assessments using the Braden nutrition subscale in predicting PrU risk.

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge that this work was supported by the resources of the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System in Gainesville, Florida, and in part by a Small Project Award from the VA Office of Nursing Services.

A pressure ulcer (PrU) is a localized injury to the skin and/or deep tissues that is due to pressure, friction, or shearing forces. Pressure ulcers are strongly associated with serious comorbidities, particularly inadequate nutrition and immobility.^1,2 Pressure ulcers increase hospital costs significantly. In the U.S., PrU care is about $11 billion annually and a cost of between $2,000 and $21,410 per individual PrU.^3-5

The impact of nosocomial PrUs remains a key health and economic concern of acute care facilities worldwide. In the U.S., about 2.5 million inpatients annually develop some degree of a PrU during their hospital stay. The reported incidence rates range from 0.4% to 38%.^3,6 Each year about 60,000 people die of complications of a PrU.^3,6,7 Inadequate nutrition is a critical factor that contributes to the incidence of PrUs.^8-12 Consequences of inadequate nutrition have included alterations in skin integrity resulting in PrUs, longer hospital stays, increased costs of care, and higher rates of mortality.⁹ As a patient’s nutritional status becomes compromised, the likelihood of developing a PrU increases, especially if an individual is immobilized.^7,9-11,13

Braden Scale History

The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk was developed by Barbara Braden, PhD, RN, and Nancy Bergstrom, PhD, RN, in 1987.^14,15 Originally established for use in long-term care facilities, the scale is recommended by the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel in its clinical practice guidelinesand is the most frequently used risk assessment tool by nurses in acute care facilities worldwide.¹

The scale is composed of 6 factors: sensory perception, moisture, activity, mobility, friction and shear, and nutrition.¹⁴ Each factor is scored on a scale of 1 to 4 points (friction and shear are scored on a point scale of only 1 to 3) for a total possible score of 6 to 23 points (the lower the score, the greater the assumed PrU risk).

The Braden nutrition subscale relies heavily on recording observed or patient self-reported eating habits. It is typically documented by nurses who assess the daily intake of meals: recording a score of 4 if the patient’s meal intake is excellent (eats most of every meal), 3 if the patient’s intake is adequate (eats more than half of most meals), 2 if the patient’s intake is probably inadequate (rarely eats a complete meal), and 1 if a patient’s intake is very poor (never eats a complete meal) (Table 1).¹⁴

Historically, the Braden scale is reported to have good reliability when used by registered nurses as a risk prediction tool.^14,16 A recent review also reported high interrater reliability of the Braden scale total score among nurses, nursing assistants, and graduate assistants.¹⁷ However, other studies suggest certain subscales (such as sensory and nutrition) may have very low interrater reliability among nurses and poor PrU predictability.^18,19 To date, there are no known studies evaluating the agreement of the Braden nutrition subscale primarily used by nurses and the VA Nutrition Classification Scheme (VANCS) used by dietitians.

The VA standard of care recommends that PrU risk assessments are documented for all hospitalized veterans within 24 hours of admission, daily, with transfers or discharges, and when there is a status change in the patient. In addition, nutritional assessments by dietitians (using the VANCS) are encouraged within 24 hours of acute care hospitalization.²⁰

The VANCS performed by dietitians consists of 4 classifications: no nutritional compromise, mild nutritional compromise, moderate nutritional compromise, and severenutritional compromise. These classifications are based on well-documented “comprehensive approaches to defining nutritional status that uses multiple parameters” including nutrition history, weight (body mass index and weight loss), diagnoses, diet (and diet orders), brief physical assessment, and preliminary laboratory data (serum albumin/pre-albumin and total lymphocyte count).^20,21

The predictive ability of a risk assessment tool is critical to its clinical effectiveness in determining a clinical outcome.¹⁷ The Braden scale has been used for more than 30 years in various settings without any significant change to the scale or subscales. In a 2012 study, 4 medical factors were found to be more predictive of PrUs than the Braden scale total score in a sample of 213 acutely ill adult veterans.⁸ By performing a retrospective study using logistic regression predictive models, severe nutritional compromise (as identified by a dietitian), pneumonia, candidiasis, and surgery were identified as stronger predictors of PrU risk than was the Braden total score.⁸

With malnutrition as one of the most significant predictive factors in PrU risk, it is critical to determine whether discrepancies exist between the Braden nutrition subscale used primarily by nurses and the VANCS used by dietitians. Hence, the overall purpose of this study was to determine the level of agreement between the Braden nutrition subscale scores documented by nurses and the VANCS used by dietitians and examine the relationship of these assessments with PrU development.

 

Methods

The parent study was approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board before data collection. This secondary analysis of the parent study examined data already collected by Cowan and colleagues, which demonstrated the significance of nutritional compromise in PrU risk.⁸

The de-identified data subset consisted of general demographics, hospital length of stay, specific diagnoses, Braden scores, PrU status, and registered dietician nutritional classification data from 213 acutely ill veterans admitted to North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System (NF/SGVHS) in Florida for more than 3 days between January and July 2008.⁸ The sample consisted of 100 veterans with nosocomial PrUs and 113 veterans without PrUs during their admission.

Scoring

Using the de-identified dataset, the variables of interest (VANCS, Braden nutrition subscale score, and the presence/absence of PrU) were coded. The VANCS was given a corresponding score ranging from 1 to 4 (1, severe nutritional compromise; 2, moderate nutritional compromise; 3, mild nutritional compromise; and 4, no nutritional compromise). The Braden nutrition subscale ranged from 1 to 4 (1 very poor nutrition; 2, probably inadequate nutrition; 3, adequate nutrition; and 4, excellent nutrition). PrU development was coded as 0, no PrU development and 1, PrU development. All nutritional assessments had been recorded in the electronic health record before any PrU reported in the parent study.

Statistical Analysis

After coding the variables of interest, the data were transferred into SAS v 9.4 (Cary, NC). The data collected compared VANCS and Braden nutrition subscale results. In addition, the authors examined the agreement between the score assigned to the VANCS and Braden nutrition subscale results with a weighted κ analysis. Further, to determine the relationship between PrU and each of the nutrition assessment methods, chi-square or Fisher exact tests were conducted. The level of significance was set at .05.

Additionally, the authors computed sensitivity and specificity of the Braden nutrition subscale using the VANCS as the gold standard. The severe and moderately compromised categories of the VANCS combined to form the high-risk category, and the mild-to-no compromise categories were combined to form the low-risk category. The Braden nutrition subscale was similarly dichotomized with the very poor and probably inadequate intake forming the high-risk category and the adequate and excellent intake forming the low-risk category. Sensitivity and specificity of the Braden were then calculated.

Results

Nursing assessments using the Braden nutrition subscale were completed on 213 patients whose mean age (SD) was 71.0 (10.6) years. The VANCS documented by dietitians was completed on 205 patients. For 7 patients, a nutrition assessment was documented only by the Braden nutrition subscale and not the VANCS. Most of the patients were male (97%, n = 206), and white (81.4%, n = 171). The weighted κ statistic used to measure agreement between the Braden nutrition subscale and the VANCS was .17 (95% confidence interval = .07, .28).

Landis and colleagues suggest that a κ value of .17 may be interpreted as “fair” agreement.²² Figure 1 shows the agreement seen between the Braden nutrition subscale and VANCS. There was no strong agreement identified. Within each VANCS (severe compromise, moderate compromise, mild compromise, or no compromise), the numbers of patients rated as 1 (very poor intake), 2 (intake probably inadequate), or 3 (intake adequate) on the Braden nutrition subscale is given.

There were 39 patients determined to be severely compromised by dietitians. Of these 39 patients, only 13 also were deemed to have very poor intake by the Braden nutrition subscale.

Figure 2 shows the percentage of patients who developed a PrU during hospitalization among different measures of Braden nutrition subscale vs VANCS. In Figure 2, nutritional categories 1, 2, and 3 correspond to very poor intake (Braden)/severe compromise (VANCS), probably inadequate intake (Braden)/moderate compromise (VANCS), and adequate intake (Braden)/mild compromise (VANCS), respectively. There were 3 patients who had a no compromise VANCS; none of these had a PrU, so their data are not represented in Figure 2.

There were no patients with a rating of excellent intake on the Braden nutrition subscale. Presence of a PrU was not significantly related to Braden nutrition subscale measures (chi-square test, P = .19). However, the presence of a PrU was significantly related to VANCS (Fisher exact test, P < .0001). As shown in Figure 2, higher PrU risk was related to higher nutritional compromise as determined by VANCS; 79% of those determined to be severely compromised by VANCS had PrUs compared with 48% of those determined to have very poor intake by the Braden nutrition subscale.

​

Discussion

Findings from this study indicate that the VANCS documented by dietitians is superior in assessing nutritional risk and predicting the development of PrUs in acutely ill hospitalized veterans compared with the Braden nutrition subscale. This study also shows that the Braden nutrition subscale did not accurately predict PrU development in acutely ill veterans. This finding concurs with the Serpa and Santos study in which the Braden nutrition subscale scores were not predictive for PrU development in hospitalized patients.²³ They found that serum albumin levels and subjective global nutrition assessments were superior nutritional predictors of PrU development. These findings suggest modifications or enhancements are needed to address how nurses assess nutritional risk for PrUs in hospitalized patients.

 

One possible explanation for the findings in this study is that the nutrition subscale of the Braden tool asks the assessing clinician to evaluate the amount of food intake the patient is currently taking in for their usual meals. This assessment is highly subjective and speculative and does not account for recent intake fluctuations or weight loss. By comparison, the VANCS is more comprehensive in its ability to assess nutritional compromise based on multiple factors, such as recent weight loss, laboratory indices, body habitus, dentition, and swallowing ability.²⁰ The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel suggests that following an acute care admission, a patient receive a consult from a dietitian if the health care provider suspects that the patient may be nutritionally compromised.¹ The study findings demonstrate the utility of the VANCS as predictive of PrU risk.

Unfortunately, the authors have learned that the VANCS may be phased out soon, and many VA facilities are no longer using it. Findings from this study and other recent scientific literature suggest that all inpatients may benefit from nutritional assessments by dietitians. When performed, dietitian assessments provide the basis for more accurate nursing assessment of nutritional risk and targeted interventions. Nursing professionals should be encouraged to review the dietitian assessment and consultation notes and to incorporate this information into a more comprehensive PrU prevention and treatment plan.

Interestingly, in spite of those assessed to have severe nutritional compromise by dietitian assessment (n = 39), very few of these patients (n = 4) had an ICD-9 diagnosis related to malnutrition (ICD-9 codes, 262, 273.8, 269.9, 263.9) entered in their chart for that hospitalization. This observation suggests that 88% of patients with severe nutritional compromise were not appropriately coded at discharge. Improper coding has implications for researchers using ICD-9 diagnosis codes at discharge for accurate analysis of risk factors as well as for health care providers who may look at coded diagnoses information in the charts when considering comorbid conditions for health management.

This study highlights the importance of nutritional status as a risk factor for PrU development. Reasons suggested for nutritional status seeming to be the most significant correlate to PrUs in the acute care setting include the following: decreased protein alters oncotic pressure, making tissue prone to edema; decreases in subcutaneous fat reduce protection from pressure effects; nutritional compromise alters cellular transport of nutrients and waste and makes tissue cells more vulnerable to deformation and physical stresses; and lactate (a by-product of anaerobic glycolysis) or any other metabolic by-product of malnutrition could cause biochemical stress, and tissue cells can die faster as a result of the increased plasma membrane permeability.^7,24-26

Limitations

This study was limited to 1 sample of veterans hospitalized in the 2 acute care facilities of NF/SGVHS and the use of a retrospective chart review. As a result, further research is necessary to establish generalizability to other acute care settings and high-risk populations. In spite of these limitations, this and other studies highlight the need for revision of the Braden scale, specifically the nutritional subscale, to lessen the ambiguity seen between dietitian and nursing assessments while also increasing the accuracy in determining a patient’s nutrition risk of PrU development during hospitalization.

Conclusion

These findings provide evidence that dietitians’ documentation of the VANCS related to nutritional compromise are superior to current nutritional risk assessments using the Braden nutrition subscale in predicting PrU risk.

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge that this work was supported by the resources of the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System in Gainesville, Florida, and in part by a Small Project Award from the VA Office of Nursing Services.

A pressure ulcer (PrU) is a localized injury to the skin and/or deep tissues that is due to pressure, friction, or shearing forces. Pressure ulcers are strongly associated with serious comorbidities, particularly inadequate nutrition and immobility.^1,2 Pressure ulcers increase hospital costs significantly. In the U.S., PrU care is about $11 billion annually and a cost of between $2,000 and $21,410 per individual PrU.^3-5

The impact of nosocomial PrUs remains a key health and economic concern of acute care facilities worldwide. In the U.S., about 2.5 million inpatients annually develop some degree of a PrU during their hospital stay. The reported incidence rates range from 0.4% to 38%.^3,6 Each year about 60,000 people die of complications of a PrU.^3,6,7 Inadequate nutrition is a critical factor that contributes to the incidence of PrUs.^8-12 Consequences of inadequate nutrition have included alterations in skin integrity resulting in PrUs, longer hospital stays, increased costs of care, and higher rates of mortality.⁹ As a patient’s nutritional status becomes compromised, the likelihood of developing a PrU increases, especially if an individual is immobilized.^7,9-11,13

Braden Scale History

The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk was developed by Barbara Braden, PhD, RN, and Nancy Bergstrom, PhD, RN, in 1987.^14,15 Originally established for use in long-term care facilities, the scale is recommended by the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel in its clinical practice guidelinesand is the most frequently used risk assessment tool by nurses in acute care facilities worldwide.¹

The scale is composed of 6 factors: sensory perception, moisture, activity, mobility, friction and shear, and nutrition.¹⁴ Each factor is scored on a scale of 1 to 4 points (friction and shear are scored on a point scale of only 1 to 3) for a total possible score of 6 to 23 points (the lower the score, the greater the assumed PrU risk).

The Braden nutrition subscale relies heavily on recording observed or patient self-reported eating habits. It is typically documented by nurses who assess the daily intake of meals: recording a score of 4 if the patient’s meal intake is excellent (eats most of every meal), 3 if the patient’s intake is adequate (eats more than half of most meals), 2 if the patient’s intake is probably inadequate (rarely eats a complete meal), and 1 if a patient’s intake is very poor (never eats a complete meal) (Table 1).¹⁴

Historically, the Braden scale is reported to have good reliability when used by registered nurses as a risk prediction tool.^14,16 A recent review also reported high interrater reliability of the Braden scale total score among nurses, nursing assistants, and graduate assistants.¹⁷ However, other studies suggest certain subscales (such as sensory and nutrition) may have very low interrater reliability among nurses and poor PrU predictability.^18,19 To date, there are no known studies evaluating the agreement of the Braden nutrition subscale primarily used by nurses and the VA Nutrition Classification Scheme (VANCS) used by dietitians.

The VA standard of care recommends that PrU risk assessments are documented for all hospitalized veterans within 24 hours of admission, daily, with transfers or discharges, and when there is a status change in the patient. In addition, nutritional assessments by dietitians (using the VANCS) are encouraged within 24 hours of acute care hospitalization.²⁰

The VANCS performed by dietitians consists of 4 classifications: no nutritional compromise, mild nutritional compromise, moderate nutritional compromise, and severenutritional compromise. These classifications are based on well-documented “comprehensive approaches to defining nutritional status that uses multiple parameters” including nutrition history, weight (body mass index and weight loss), diagnoses, diet (and diet orders), brief physical assessment, and preliminary laboratory data (serum albumin/pre-albumin and total lymphocyte count).^20,21

The predictive ability of a risk assessment tool is critical to its clinical effectiveness in determining a clinical outcome.¹⁷ The Braden scale has been used for more than 30 years in various settings without any significant change to the scale or subscales. In a 2012 study, 4 medical factors were found to be more predictive of PrUs than the Braden scale total score in a sample of 213 acutely ill adult veterans.⁸ By performing a retrospective study using logistic regression predictive models, severe nutritional compromise (as identified by a dietitian), pneumonia, candidiasis, and surgery were identified as stronger predictors of PrU risk than was the Braden total score.⁸

With malnutrition as one of the most significant predictive factors in PrU risk, it is critical to determine whether discrepancies exist between the Braden nutrition subscale used primarily by nurses and the VANCS used by dietitians. Hence, the overall purpose of this study was to determine the level of agreement between the Braden nutrition subscale scores documented by nurses and the VANCS used by dietitians and examine the relationship of these assessments with PrU development.

 

Methods

The parent study was approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board before data collection. This secondary analysis of the parent study examined data already collected by Cowan and colleagues, which demonstrated the significance of nutritional compromise in PrU risk.⁸

The de-identified data subset consisted of general demographics, hospital length of stay, specific diagnoses, Braden scores, PrU status, and registered dietician nutritional classification data from 213 acutely ill veterans admitted to North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System (NF/SGVHS) in Florida for more than 3 days between January and July 2008.⁸ The sample consisted of 100 veterans with nosocomial PrUs and 113 veterans without PrUs during their admission.

Scoring

Using the de-identified dataset, the variables of interest (VANCS, Braden nutrition subscale score, and the presence/absence of PrU) were coded. The VANCS was given a corresponding score ranging from 1 to 4 (1, severe nutritional compromise; 2, moderate nutritional compromise; 3, mild nutritional compromise; and 4, no nutritional compromise). The Braden nutrition subscale ranged from 1 to 4 (1 very poor nutrition; 2, probably inadequate nutrition; 3, adequate nutrition; and 4, excellent nutrition). PrU development was coded as 0, no PrU development and 1, PrU development. All nutritional assessments had been recorded in the electronic health record before any PrU reported in the parent study.

Statistical Analysis

After coding the variables of interest, the data were transferred into SAS v 9.4 (Cary, NC). The data collected compared VANCS and Braden nutrition subscale results. In addition, the authors examined the agreement between the score assigned to the VANCS and Braden nutrition subscale results with a weighted κ analysis. Further, to determine the relationship between PrU and each of the nutrition assessment methods, chi-square or Fisher exact tests were conducted. The level of significance was set at .05.

Additionally, the authors computed sensitivity and specificity of the Braden nutrition subscale using the VANCS as the gold standard. The severe and moderately compromised categories of the VANCS combined to form the high-risk category, and the mild-to-no compromise categories were combined to form the low-risk category. The Braden nutrition subscale was similarly dichotomized with the very poor and probably inadequate intake forming the high-risk category and the adequate and excellent intake forming the low-risk category. Sensitivity and specificity of the Braden were then calculated.

Results

Nursing assessments using the Braden nutrition subscale were completed on 213 patients whose mean age (SD) was 71.0 (10.6) years. The VANCS documented by dietitians was completed on 205 patients. For 7 patients, a nutrition assessment was documented only by the Braden nutrition subscale and not the VANCS. Most of the patients were male (97%, n = 206), and white (81.4%, n = 171). The weighted κ statistic used to measure agreement between the Braden nutrition subscale and the VANCS was .17 (95% confidence interval = .07, .28).

Landis and colleagues suggest that a κ value of .17 may be interpreted as “fair” agreement.²² Figure 1 shows the agreement seen between the Braden nutrition subscale and VANCS. There was no strong agreement identified. Within each VANCS (severe compromise, moderate compromise, mild compromise, or no compromise), the numbers of patients rated as 1 (very poor intake), 2 (intake probably inadequate), or 3 (intake adequate) on the Braden nutrition subscale is given.

There were 39 patients determined to be severely compromised by dietitians. Of these 39 patients, only 13 also were deemed to have very poor intake by the Braden nutrition subscale.

Figure 2 shows the percentage of patients who developed a PrU during hospitalization among different measures of Braden nutrition subscale vs VANCS. In Figure 2, nutritional categories 1, 2, and 3 correspond to very poor intake (Braden)/severe compromise (VANCS), probably inadequate intake (Braden)/moderate compromise (VANCS), and adequate intake (Braden)/mild compromise (VANCS), respectively. There were 3 patients who had a no compromise VANCS; none of these had a PrU, so their data are not represented in Figure 2.

There were no patients with a rating of excellent intake on the Braden nutrition subscale. Presence of a PrU was not significantly related to Braden nutrition subscale measures (chi-square test, P = .19). However, the presence of a PrU was significantly related to VANCS (Fisher exact test, P < .0001). As shown in Figure 2, higher PrU risk was related to higher nutritional compromise as determined by VANCS; 79% of those determined to be severely compromised by VANCS had PrUs compared with 48% of those determined to have very poor intake by the Braden nutrition subscale.

​

Discussion

Findings from this study indicate that the VANCS documented by dietitians is superior in assessing nutritional risk and predicting the development of PrUs in acutely ill hospitalized veterans compared with the Braden nutrition subscale. This study also shows that the Braden nutrition subscale did not accurately predict PrU development in acutely ill veterans. This finding concurs with the Serpa and Santos study in which the Braden nutrition subscale scores were not predictive for PrU development in hospitalized patients.²³ They found that serum albumin levels and subjective global nutrition assessments were superior nutritional predictors of PrU development. These findings suggest modifications or enhancements are needed to address how nurses assess nutritional risk for PrUs in hospitalized patients.

 

One possible explanation for the findings in this study is that the nutrition subscale of the Braden tool asks the assessing clinician to evaluate the amount of food intake the patient is currently taking in for their usual meals. This assessment is highly subjective and speculative and does not account for recent intake fluctuations or weight loss. By comparison, the VANCS is more comprehensive in its ability to assess nutritional compromise based on multiple factors, such as recent weight loss, laboratory indices, body habitus, dentition, and swallowing ability.²⁰ The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel suggests that following an acute care admission, a patient receive a consult from a dietitian if the health care provider suspects that the patient may be nutritionally compromised.¹ The study findings demonstrate the utility of the VANCS as predictive of PrU risk.

Unfortunately, the authors have learned that the VANCS may be phased out soon, and many VA facilities are no longer using it. Findings from this study and other recent scientific literature suggest that all inpatients may benefit from nutritional assessments by dietitians. When performed, dietitian assessments provide the basis for more accurate nursing assessment of nutritional risk and targeted interventions. Nursing professionals should be encouraged to review the dietitian assessment and consultation notes and to incorporate this information into a more comprehensive PrU prevention and treatment plan.

Interestingly, in spite of those assessed to have severe nutritional compromise by dietitian assessment (n = 39), very few of these patients (n = 4) had an ICD-9 diagnosis related to malnutrition (ICD-9 codes, 262, 273.8, 269.9, 263.9) entered in their chart for that hospitalization. This observation suggests that 88% of patients with severe nutritional compromise were not appropriately coded at discharge. Improper coding has implications for researchers using ICD-9 diagnosis codes at discharge for accurate analysis of risk factors as well as for health care providers who may look at coded diagnoses information in the charts when considering comorbid conditions for health management.

This study highlights the importance of nutritional status as a risk factor for PrU development. Reasons suggested for nutritional status seeming to be the most significant correlate to PrUs in the acute care setting include the following: decreased protein alters oncotic pressure, making tissue prone to edema; decreases in subcutaneous fat reduce protection from pressure effects; nutritional compromise alters cellular transport of nutrients and waste and makes tissue cells more vulnerable to deformation and physical stresses; and lactate (a by-product of anaerobic glycolysis) or any other metabolic by-product of malnutrition could cause biochemical stress, and tissue cells can die faster as a result of the increased plasma membrane permeability.^7,24-26

Limitations

This study was limited to 1 sample of veterans hospitalized in the 2 acute care facilities of NF/SGVHS and the use of a retrospective chart review. As a result, further research is necessary to establish generalizability to other acute care settings and high-risk populations. In spite of these limitations, this and other studies highlight the need for revision of the Braden scale, specifically the nutritional subscale, to lessen the ambiguity seen between dietitian and nursing assessments while also increasing the accuracy in determining a patient’s nutrition risk of PrU development during hospitalization.

Conclusion

These findings provide evidence that dietitians’ documentation of the VANCS related to nutritional compromise are superior to current nutritional risk assessments using the Braden nutrition subscale in predicting PrU risk.

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge that this work was supported by the resources of the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System in Gainesville, Florida, and in part by a Small Project Award from the VA Office of Nursing Services.