These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Fall risk-assessment tools compared with clinical judgment: an evaluation in a rehabilitation ward.
    Author: Vassallo M, Poynter L, Sharma JC, Kwan J, Allen SC.
    Journal: Age Ageing; 2008 May; 37(3):277-81. PubMed ID: 18456792.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]