Evaluation of a concise fall risk stratification among older adults with cataracts in day surgery settings: A historically controlled study

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Ya-ping Wang, Can Dai, Ping Ou-yang, Yan-hua Zhao, Dan Xu
{"title":"Evaluation of a concise fall risk stratification among older adults with cataracts in day surgery settings: A historically controlled study","authors":"Ya-ping Wang,&nbsp;Can Dai,&nbsp;Ping Ou-yang,&nbsp;Yan-hua Zhao,&nbsp;Dan Xu","doi":"10.1111/jjns.12579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to evaluate the use of a concise fall risk stratification in assessing and predicting falls compared with the Morse Falls Scale among older adults with cataracts in day surgery settings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A historically controlled study conducted from July 2020 to June 2022 was used in a municipal ophthalmic hospital in China. The concise fall risk stratification which directly graded fall risk by multifactorial judgment was used during the intervention period, while the Morse Falls Scale which graded fall risk by scale scores was used during the control period. The fall risk levels, fall assessment time, fall rates, fall-related injuries, predictive validity, and patient satisfaction with day surgery care were extracted. Propensity score matching was performed to balance baselines.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>After matching, 4132 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with the control group, the intervention group had significantly higher assessment results for fall risk level, a significantly shorter (by 48.15%) fall assessment time, and higher patient satisfaction. There were no differences in fall rates and fall-related injuries. Compared with the Morse Falls Scale, the concise fall risk stratification had higher sensitivity and negative predictive validity, and lower specificity and positive predictive validity, while the area under curve did not differ significantly.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The use of the concise fall risk stratification reduced fall assessment time, improved patient satisfaction, and is unlikely to impact falls with an overall predictive performance comparable to that of the Morse Falls Scale for older cataract adults in day surgery settings.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50265,"journal":{"name":"Japan Journal of Nursing Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japan Journal of Nursing Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jjns.12579","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate the use of a concise fall risk stratification in assessing and predicting falls compared with the Morse Falls Scale among older adults with cataracts in day surgery settings.

Methods

A historically controlled study conducted from July 2020 to June 2022 was used in a municipal ophthalmic hospital in China. The concise fall risk stratification which directly graded fall risk by multifactorial judgment was used during the intervention period, while the Morse Falls Scale which graded fall risk by scale scores was used during the control period. The fall risk levels, fall assessment time, fall rates, fall-related injuries, predictive validity, and patient satisfaction with day surgery care were extracted. Propensity score matching was performed to balance baselines.

Results

After matching, 4132 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with the control group, the intervention group had significantly higher assessment results for fall risk level, a significantly shorter (by 48.15%) fall assessment time, and higher patient satisfaction. There were no differences in fall rates and fall-related injuries. Compared with the Morse Falls Scale, the concise fall risk stratification had higher sensitivity and negative predictive validity, and lower specificity and positive predictive validity, while the area under curve did not differ significantly.

Conclusion

The use of the concise fall risk stratification reduced fall assessment time, improved patient satisfaction, and is unlikely to impact falls with an overall predictive performance comparable to that of the Morse Falls Scale for older cataract adults in day surgery settings.

评估老年白内障患者日间手术中跌倒风险分层:一项历史对照研究。
目的:本研究旨在评价在评估和预测老年白内障患者日间手术中跌倒风险分层与莫尔斯跌倒量表的应用。方法:于2020年7月至2022年6月在中国一家市立眼科医院进行历史对照研究。干预期采用多因素判断直接分级的简明跌倒风险分层法,对照组采用莫尔斯跌倒量表,按量表得分对跌倒风险进行分级。提取跌倒风险水平、跌倒评估时间、跌倒率、跌倒相关损伤、预测效度和患者对日间手术护理的满意度。进行倾向评分匹配以平衡基线。结果:经匹配,最终纳入4132例患者。干预组与对照组相比,跌倒危险程度评估结果显著提高,跌倒评估时间显著缩短(48.15%),患者满意度显著提高。在跌倒率和跌倒相关损伤方面没有差异。与莫尔斯瀑布量表相比,简洁的跌倒风险分层具有更高的敏感性和负预测效度,较低的特异性和正预测效度,而曲线下面积无显著差异。结论:使用简明的跌倒风险分层减少了跌倒评估时间,提高了患者满意度,并且不太可能影响跌倒的总体预测性能,与莫尔斯跌倒量表在日间手术环境中对老年白内障患者的预测性能相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Japan Journal of Nursing Science is the official English language journal of the Japan Academy of Nursing Science. The purpose of the Journal is to provide a mechanism to share knowledge related to improving health care and promoting the development of nursing. The Journal seeks original manuscripts reporting scholarly work on the art and science of nursing. Original articles may be empirical and qualitative studies, review articles, methodological articles, brief reports, case studies and letters to the Editor. Please see Instructions for Authors for detailed authorship qualification requirement.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信