Fall risk-assessment tools compared with clinical judgment: an evaluation in a rehabilitation ward.
OBJECTIVE
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.
Vassallo
Michael
M
Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Medicine Castle Lane East Bournemouth, Dorset BH7 7DW, UK. michael.vassallo@rbch.nhs.uk
Poynter
Lynn
L
Sharma
Jagdish C
JC
Kwan
Joseph
J
Allen
Stephen C
SC
D000058:Accidental Falls; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D015577:Geriatric Assessment / Q000379:methods; D006299:Health Services for the Aged; D006801:Humans; D008499:Medical Records; D010362:Patients' Rooms; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012046:Rehabilitation; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity