Avaliação da cicatrização da episiotomia: confiabilidade da escala REEDA (Redness, Oedema, Ecchymosis, Discharge, Approximation)

Autores
ALVARENGA, Marina Barreto
FRANCISCO, Adriana Amorim
OLIVEIRA, Sonia Maria unqueira Vasconcellos de
SILVA, Flora Maria Barbosa da
DAMIANI, Lucas Petri
Autor de Grupo de pesquisa
Editores
Coordenadores
Organizadores
Citação
REVISTA LATINO-AMERICANA DE ENFERMAGEM, v.23, n.1, p.162-168, 2015
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Objective: to analyse the Redness, Oedema, Ecchymosis, Discharge, Approximation (REEDA) scale reliability when evaluating perineal healing after a normal delivery with a right mediolateral episiotomy. Method: observational study based on data from a clinical trial conducted with 54 randomly selected women, who had their perineal healing assessed at four time points, from 6 hours to 10 days after delivery, by nurses trained in the use of this scale. The kappa coefficient was used in the reliability analysis of the REEDA scale. Results: the results indicate good agreement in the evaluation of the discharge item (0.75< Kappa >= 0.88), marginal and good agreement in the first three assessments of oedema (0.16< Kappa >= 0.46), marginal agreement in the evaluation of ecchymosis (0.25< Kappa >= 0.42) and good agreement regarding redness (0.46< Kappa >= 0.66). For the item coaptation, the agreement decreased from excellent in the first assessment to good in the last assessment. In the fourth evaluation, the assessment of all items displayed excellent or good agreement among the evaluators. Conclusion: the difference in the scores among the evaluators when applying the scale indicates that this tool must be improved to allow an accurate assessment of the episiotomy healing process.
Palavras-chave
Episiotomy, Wound Healing, Scales, Postpartum Period
Referências
  1. Almeida Sandra Ferreira Silva de, 2008, Rev Lat Am Enfermagem, V16, P272
  2. Alvarenga MB, 2012, THESIS
  3. Bharathi A, 2013, J Clin Diagn Res, V7, P326, DOI 10.7860/JCDR/2013/5185.2758
  4. Carey ILP, 1971, THESIS
  5. Davidson N, 1974, J Nurse Midwifery, V19, P6
  6. Declercq E. R., 2013, LISTENING TO MOTHERS
  7. Dudley L, 2013, BR J MIDWIFERY, V21, P160
  8. East CE, 2012, MIDWIFERY, V28, P93, DOI 10.1016/j.midw.2010.11.009
  9. Greaves NS, 2013, J DERMATOL SCI, V72, P206, DOI 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2013.07.008
  10. Griffiths P, 2010, INT J NURS STUD, V47, P937, DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.03.004
  11. HILL PD, 1990, J NURSE-MIDWIFERY, V35, P162, DOI 10.1016/0091-2182(90)90166-3
  12. Kettle C, 2011, CLIN EVID
  13. Kindberg S, 2008, BJOG-INT J OBSTET GY, V115, P472, DOI 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01637.x
  14. Kindberg S, 2009, BJOG-INT J OBSTET GY, V116, P569, DOI 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02016.x
  15. Metcalfe A, 2005, PERINEAL CARE AN INT, P87
  16. Mohamed HAE, 2012, J AM SCI, V8, P640
  17. Polit DF, 2011, FUNDAMENTOS DE PESQU
  18. Rosner B, 2011, FUNDAMENTALS OF BIOS
  19. Santos JD, 2012, J CLIN NURS, V21, P3513, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.04019.x
  20. Sheikhan Fatemeh, 2012, Complement Ther Clin Pract, V18, P66, DOI 10.1016/j.ctcp.2011.02.003
  21. Steen M, 1997, J Wound Care, V6, P432