Fall risk-assessment tools compared with clinical judgment: An evaluation in a rehabilitation ward

Authors: Vassallo, M., Poynter, L., Sharma, J.C., Kwan, J. and Allen, S.C.

Journal: Age and Ageing

Volume: 37

Issue: 3

Pages: 277-281

eISSN: 1468-2834

ISSN: 0002-0729

DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afn062

Abstract:

Objectives: To compare the use of two falls risk-identification tools (Downton and STRATIFY) with clinical judgment (based upon the observation of wandering behaviour) in predicting falls of medically stable patients in a rehabilitation ward for older people. Methods: in a prospective observational study, with blinded end-point evaluation, 200 patients admitted to a geriatric rehabilitation hospital had a STRATIFY and Downton Fall Risk assessment and were observed for wandering behaviour. Results: wandering had a predictive accuracy of 78%. A total of 157/200 were identified correctly compared to 100/200 using the Downton score (P < 0.0001 95%, CI 0.18-0.42), or 93/200 using STRATIFY (P < 0.0001; 95% CI 0.15-0.37). The Downton and STRATIFY tools demonstrated predictive accuracies of 50% and 46.5%, respectively, with no statistical significance between the two (P = 0.55; 95% CI 0.77-1.71). Sensitivity for predicting falls using wandering was 43.1% (22/51). This was significantly worse than Downton 92.2% (47/51: P <0.001) and STRATIFY 82.3% (42/51: P < 0.001). Conclusions: this study showed that clinical observation had a higher accuracy than two used falls risk-assessment tools. However it was significantly less sensitive implying that fewer patients who fell were correctly identified as being at risk. © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.

Source: Scopus

Fall risk-assessment tools compared with clinical judgment: an evaluation in a rehabilitation ward.

Authors: Vassallo, M., Poynter, L., Sharma, J.C., Kwan, J. and Allen, S.C.

Journal: Age Ageing

Volume: 37

Issue: 3

Pages: 277-281

eISSN: 1468-2834

DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afn062

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: to compare the use of two falls risk-identification tools (Downton and STRATIFY) with clinical judgment (based upon the observation of wandering behaviour) in predicting falls of medically stable patients in a rehabilitation ward for older people. METHODS: in a prospective observational study, with blinded end-point evaluation, 200 patients admitted to a geriatric rehabilitation hospital had a STRATIFY and Downton Fall Risk assessment and were observed for wandering behaviour. RESULTS: wandering had a predictive accuracy of 78%. A total of 157/200 were identified correctly compared to 100/200 using the Downton score (P < 0.0001 95%, CI 0.18-0.42), or 93/200 using STRATIFY (P < 0.0001; 95% CI 0.15-0.37). The Downton and STRATIFY tools demonstrated predictive accuracies of 50% and 46.5%, respectively, with no statistical significance between the two (P = 0.55; 95% CI 0.77-1.71). Sensitivity for predicting falls using wandering was 43.1% (22/51). This was significantly worse than Downton 92.2% (47/51: P < 0.001) and STRATIFY 82.3% (42/51: P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: this study showed that clinical observation had a higher accuracy than two used falls risk-assessment tools. However it was significantly less sensitive implying that fewer patients who fell were correctly identified as being at risk.

Source: PubMed

Fall risk-assessment tools compared with clinical judgment: an evaluation in a rehabilitation ward

Authors: Vassallo, M., Poynter, L., Sharma, J.C., Kwan, J. and Allen, S.C.

Journal: AGE AND AGEING

Volume: 37

Issue: 3

Pages: 277-281

ISSN: 0002-0729

DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afn062

Source: Web of Science (Lite)

Fall risk-assessment tools compared with clinical judgment: an evaluation in a rehabilitation ward

Authors: Vassallo, M., Poynter, L., Sharma, J.C., Kwan, J.W. and Allen, S.C.

Journal: Age and Ageing

Volume: 37

Pages: 277-281

ISSN: 0002-0729

DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afn062

Abstract:

Objectives: to compare the use of two falls risk-identification tools (Downton and STRATIFY) with clinical judgment (based upon the observation of wandering behaviour) in predicting falls of medically stable patients in a rehabilitation ward for older people.

Methods: in a prospective observational study, with blinded end-point evaluation, 200 patients admitted to a geriatric rehabilitation hospital had a STRATIFY and Downton Fall Risk assessment and were observed for wandering behaviour.

Results: wandering had a predictive accuracy of 78%. A total of 157/200 were identified correctly compared to 100/200 using the Downton score (P < 0.0001 95%, CI 0.18–0.42), or 93/200 using STRATIFY (P < 0.0001; 95% CI 0.15–0.37). The Downton and STRATIFY tools demonstrated predictive accuracies of 50% and 46.5%, respectively, with no statistical significance between the two (P = 0.55; 95% CI 0.77–1.71). Sensitivity for predicting falls using wandering was 43.1% (22/51). This was significantly worse than Downton 92.2% (47/51: P < 0.001) and STRATIFY 82.3% (42/51: P < 0.001).

Conclusions: this study showed that clinical observation had a higher accuracy than two used falls risk-assessment tools. However it was significantly less sensitive implying that fewer patients who fell were correctly identified as being at risk.

http://ageing.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/3/277

Source: Manual

Preferred by: Stephen Allen

Fall risk-assessment tools compared with clinical judgment: an evaluation in a rehabilitation ward.

Authors: Vassallo, M., Poynter, L., Sharma, J.C., Kwan, J. and Allen, S.C.

Journal: Age and ageing

Volume: 37

Issue: 3

Pages: 277-281

eISSN: 1468-2834

ISSN: 0002-0729

DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afn062

Abstract:

Objectives

to compare the use of two falls risk-identification tools (Downton and STRATIFY) with clinical judgment (based upon the observation of wandering behaviour) in predicting falls of medically stable patients in a rehabilitation ward for older people.

Methods

in a prospective observational study, with blinded end-point evaluation, 200 patients admitted to a geriatric rehabilitation hospital had a STRATIFY and Downton Fall Risk assessment and were observed for wandering behaviour.

Results

wandering had a predictive accuracy of 78%. A total of 157/200 were identified correctly compared to 100/200 using the Downton score (P < 0.0001 95%, CI 0.18-0.42), or 93/200 using STRATIFY (P < 0.0001; 95% CI 0.15-0.37). The Downton and STRATIFY tools demonstrated predictive accuracies of 50% and 46.5%, respectively, with no statistical significance between the two (P = 0.55; 95% CI 0.77-1.71). Sensitivity for predicting falls using wandering was 43.1% (22/51). This was significantly worse than Downton 92.2% (47/51: P < 0.001) and STRATIFY 82.3% (42/51: P < 0.001).

Conclusions

this study showed that clinical observation had a higher accuracy than two used falls risk-assessment tools. However it was significantly less sensitive implying that fewer patients who fell were correctly identified as being at risk.

Source: Europe PubMed Central