File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

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

TitleFall risk-assessment tools compared with clinical judgment: An evaluation in a rehabilitation ward
Authors
Issue Date2008
Citation
Age and Ageing, 2008, v. 37 n. 3, p. 277-281 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: 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.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/194213
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 4.201
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.611
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorVassallo, M-
dc.contributor.authorPoynter, L-
dc.contributor.authorSharma, JC-
dc.contributor.authorKwan, J-
dc.contributor.authorAllen, SC-
dc.date.accessioned2014-01-30T03:32:18Z-
dc.date.available2014-01-30T03:32:18Z-
dc.date.issued2008-
dc.identifier.citationAge and Ageing, 2008, v. 37 n. 3, p. 277-281-
dc.identifier.issn0002-0729-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/194213-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: 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.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofAge and Ageing-
dc.titleFall risk-assessment tools compared with clinical judgment: An evaluation in a rehabilitation ward-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ageing/afn062-
dc.identifier.pmid18456792-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-43149118794-
dc.identifier.volume37-
dc.identifier.issue3-
dc.identifier.spage277-
dc.identifier.epage281-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000255524900009-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats