BackgroundThe first step in effective management of pressure injuries (PIs) is to assess, categorize and stage correctly. PurposeThis study aims to examine the agreement regarding the classification and staging of PIs among nurse academicians working on chronic wounds and with different stage of expertise. MethodsThree nurse academicians were assigned as assessors according to Benner's stages of clinical competence (Competent, Proficient, and Expert). The assessors independently evaluated PIs photographs (n = 694). The assessors then met for the wounds where there was disagreement, and a Consensus agreement was reached. Kappa Statistics analysed the agreement between two assessors; Fleiss Kappa Statistics analysed the agreement between Competent, Proficient, Expert, and Consensus. ResultsStatistically, almost perfect agreement was obtained between Competent, Proficient, Expert, and Consensus assessments, respectively (Ƙ = 0.871; p < 0.001, Ƙ = 0.842; p < 0.001, Ƙ = 0.937; p < 0.001). The highest agreement between the assessors were Unstageable PIs, Deep Tissue PIs, and Stage 3 PIs respectively. The most common disagreements were between Deep Tissue PIs and Stage 1 PIs, and between Deep Tissue PIs and Stage 2 PIs. ConclusionIn the study, it was found that the categorization, and staging of PIs had varying degrees of reliability among the assesors, although at a statistically acceptable level.