| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 The University of Queensland and Princess Alexandra Hospital, Australia.
2 National Ageing Research Institute and The University of Melbourne, Australia.
3 Western General Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
4 Arthritis Foundation of Victoria Centre for Rheumatic Disease and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia.
Address correspondence to Terry Haines, PhD, Physiotherapy Department, GARU, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Ipswich Rd., Woolloongabba, Queensland, 4112, Australia. E-mail: terrence_haines{at}health.qld.gov.au
Introduction. Fall risk screening tools are frequently used as a part of falls prevention programs in hospitals. Design-related bias in evaluations of tool predictive accuracy could lead to overoptimistic results, which would then contribute to program failure in practice.
Methods. A systematic review was undertaken. Two blind reviewers assessed the methodology of relevant publications into a four-point classification system adapted from multiple sources. The association between study design classification and reported results was examined using linear regression with clustering based on screening tool and robust variance estimates with point estimates of Youden Index (= sensitivity + specificity – 1) as the dependent variable. Meta-analysis was then performed pooling data from prospective studies.
Results. Thirty-five publications met inclusion criteria, containing 51 evaluations of fall risk screening tools. Twenty evaluations were classified as retrospective validation evaluations, 11 as prospective (temporal) validation evaluations, and 20 as prospective (external) validation evaluations. Retrospective evaluations had significantly higher Youden Indices (point estimate [95% confidence interval]: 0.22 [0.11, 0.33]). Pooled Youden Indices from prospective evaluations demonstrated the STRATIFY, Morse Falls Scale, and nursing staff clinical judgment to have comparable accuracy.
Discussion. Practitioners should exercise caution in comparing validity of fall risk assessment tools where the evaluation has been limited to retrospective classifications of methodology. Heterogeneity between studies indicates that the Morse Falls Scale and STRATIFY may still be useful in particular settings, but that widespread adoption of either is unlikely to generate benefits significantly greater than that of nursing staff clinical judgment.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  M. A. Russell, K. D. Hill, L. M. Day, I. Blackberry, L. C. Gurrin, and S. C. Dharmage Development of the Falls Risk for Older People in the Community (FROP-Com) screening tool Age Ageing, January 1, 2009; 38(1): 40 - 46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Webster, M. Courtney, P. O'Rourke, N. Marsh, C. Gale, B. Abbott, P. McRae, and K. Mason Should elderly patients be screened for their 'falls risk'? Validity of the STRATIFY falls screening tool and predictors of falls in a large acute hospital Age Ageing, November 1, 2008; 37(6): 702 - 706. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Haines, S. S. Kuys, G. Morrison, J. Clarke, and P. Bew Balance Impairment Not Predictive of Falls in Geriatric Rehabilitation Wards J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., May 1, 2008; 63(5): 523 - 528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Webster and M. Courtney PREDICTIVE ACCURACY OF FALLS RISK SCREENING TOOLS J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., May 1, 2008; 63(5): 543 - 543. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Haines, K. Hill, W. Walsh, and R. Osborne AUTHORS' RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM WEBSTER AND COURTNEY J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., May 1, 2008; 63(5): 543 - 543. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Vassallo, L. Poynter, J. C. Sharma, J. Kwan, and S. C. Allen Fall risk-assessment tools compared with clinical judgment: an evaluation in a rehabilitation ward Age Ageing, May 1, 2008; 37(3): 277 - 281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
