Keum Soon Kim1, Jin A Kim2, Yun-Kyoung Choi3, Yu Jeong Kim4, Mi Hwa Park5, Hyun-Young Kim6, Mal Soon Song7. 1. Professor and Researcher, Research Institute of Nursing Science, College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. 2. Senior Researcher, Korea Health Industry Development Institute, Seoul, Korea. 3. Associate Research Fellow, Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, Seoul, Korea. 4. Manager, Quality Assurance Team, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 5. Manager, Nursing Division, Bobath Memorial Hospital, Seongnam, Korea. 6. Professor, College of Nursing, Eulji University, Daejeon, Korea. 7. Director, Nursing Division, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of three fall risk assessment scales including the Morse Fall Scale (MFS), the Bobath Memorial Hospital Fall Risk Assessment Scale (BMFRAS), and the Johns Hopkins Hospital Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT). METHODS: This study was a prospective validation cohort study in five acute care hospitals in Seoul and Gyeonggi-Do, Korea. In total, 356 patients over the age of 18 years admitted from December 2009 to February 2010 participated. The three fall risk assessment scales listed above were tested for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values. A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to show sensitivities and specificities for predicting falls based on different threshold scores for considering patients at high risk. RESULTS: Based on the mean scores of each scale for falls, the MFS at a cut-off score of 50 had a sensitivity of 78.9%, specificity of 55.8%, positive predictive value of 30.8%, and negative predictive value of 91.4%, which were the highest values among the three fall assessment scales. Areas under the curve of the ROC curves were .761 for the MFS, .715 for the BMFRAS, and .708 for the JHFRAT. CONCLUSIONS: Accordingly, of the three fall risk assessment scales, the highest predictive validity for identifying patients at high risk for falls was achieved by the MFS.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of three fall risk assessment scales including the Morse Fall Scale (MFS), the Bobath Memorial Hospital Fall Risk Assessment Scale (BMFRAS), and the Johns Hopkins Hospital Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT). METHODS: This study was a prospective validation cohort study in five acute care hospitals in Seoul and Gyeonggi-Do, Korea. In total, 356 patients over the age of 18 years admitted from December 2009 to February 2010 participated. The three fall risk assessment scales listed above were tested for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values. A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to show sensitivities and specificities for predicting falls based on different threshold scores for considering patients at high risk. RESULTS: Based on the mean scores of each scale for falls, the MFS at a cut-off score of 50 had a sensitivity of 78.9%, specificity of 55.8%, positive predictive value of 30.8%, and negative predictive value of 91.4%, which were the highest values among the three fall assessment scales. Areas under the curve of the ROC curves were .761 for the MFS, .715 for the BMFRAS, and .708 for the JHFRAT. CONCLUSIONS: Accordingly, of the three fall risk assessment scales, the highest predictive validity for identifying patients at high risk for falls was achieved by the MFS.
Authors: Louis H Poppler; Andrew P Groves; Gina Sacks; Anchal Bansal; Kristen M Davidge; Jenifer A Sledge; Heidi Tymkew; Yan Yan; Jessica M Hasak; Patricia Potter; Susan E Mackinnon Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Marta Aranda-Gallardo; Jose M Morales-Asencio; Jose C Canca-Sanchez; Silvia Barrero-Sojo; Claudia Perez-Jimenez; Angeles Morales-Fernandez; Margarita Enriquez de Luna-Rodriguez; Ana B Moya-Suarez; Ana M Mora-Banderas Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Maria Carmen Martinez; Viviane Ernesto Iwamoto; Maria do Rosário Dias de Oliveira Latorre; Adriana Moreira Noronha; Ana Paula de Sousa Oliveira; Carlos Eduardo Alves Cardoso; Ifigenia Augusta Braga Marques; Patrícia Vendramim; Paula Cristina Lopes; Thais Helena Saes de Sant'Ana Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem Date: 2016-08-29