Comparison of two fall-risk assessment tools used in a long-term care facility.

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Anat Glass, Gad Mendelson, Merav Ben Natan
{"title":"Comparison of two fall-risk assessment tools used in a long-term care facility.","authors":"Anat Glass,&nbsp;Gad Mendelson,&nbsp;Merav Ben Natan","doi":"10.1108/IJHCQA-03-2019-0065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this paper is to compare the ability of the Morse Fall Scale (MFS) and Farmer's fall-risk assessment tool (FFAT) to identify correlations between risk factors and falls among older adult long-term care (LTC) facility residents.</p><p><strong>Design/methodology/approach: </strong>This was a correlational retrospective study. 200 medical records of older adults hospitalized in a LTC facility in central Israel, from January 2017 to January 2018, were examined.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Of all the residents, 75% and 99.5% of the residents were identified as having a high fall risk according to the MFS and FFAT, respectively. Only 12.5% of residents actually fell. MFS score was weakly correlated with actual falls (odds ratio = 1.035). It was also found that all fallers fell during their first week at the facility.</p><p><strong>Research limitations/implications: </strong>Future research should explore the ability of the tools to capture changes in the fall risk by repeat assessments, as this has not been examined in the present study.</p><p><strong>Practical implications: </strong>The MFS and FFAT tool may have little value in assessing fall risk in older adult LTC facility residents. Therefore, nurses should perform a clinical evaluation of each individual patient. In addition, nurses should place a particular emphasis on fall risk and prevention during the first week following admission.</p><p><strong>Originality/value: </strong>The findings of the present study raise doubts regarding the utility of the common practice of assessing fall risk in older adult LTC facility residents using the tools MFS and the FFAT, thus emphasizing the need to adopt a different approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/IJHCQA-03-2019-0065","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-03-2019-0065","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to compare the ability of the Morse Fall Scale (MFS) and Farmer's fall-risk assessment tool (FFAT) to identify correlations between risk factors and falls among older adult long-term care (LTC) facility residents.

Design/methodology/approach: This was a correlational retrospective study. 200 medical records of older adults hospitalized in a LTC facility in central Israel, from January 2017 to January 2018, were examined.

Findings: Of all the residents, 75% and 99.5% of the residents were identified as having a high fall risk according to the MFS and FFAT, respectively. Only 12.5% of residents actually fell. MFS score was weakly correlated with actual falls (odds ratio = 1.035). It was also found that all fallers fell during their first week at the facility.

Research limitations/implications: Future research should explore the ability of the tools to capture changes in the fall risk by repeat assessments, as this has not been examined in the present study.

Practical implications: The MFS and FFAT tool may have little value in assessing fall risk in older adult LTC facility residents. Therefore, nurses should perform a clinical evaluation of each individual patient. In addition, nurses should place a particular emphasis on fall risk and prevention during the first week following admission.

Originality/value: The findings of the present study raise doubts regarding the utility of the common practice of assessing fall risk in older adult LTC facility residents using the tools MFS and the FFAT, thus emphasizing the need to adopt a different approach.

长期护理机构使用的两种跌倒风险评估工具的比较。
目的:比较Morse跌倒量表(MFS)和Farmer跌倒风险评估工具(FFAT)在识别长期护理机构(LTC)老年人跌倒风险因素之间的相关性的能力。设计/方法/方法:这是一项相关回顾性研究。研究人员检查了2017年1月至2018年1月在以色列中部一家LTC设施住院的200名老年人的医疗记录。结果:根据MFS和FFAT,所有居民中分别有75%和99.5%的居民被确定为具有高跌倒风险。只有12.5%的居民实际下降了。MFS评分与实际跌倒呈弱相关(优势比= 1.035)。调查还发现,所有的摔倒者都是在第一周摔倒的。研究局限性/意义:未来的研究应该探索这些工具通过重复评估来捕捉跌倒风险变化的能力,因为这在本研究中尚未得到检验。实际意义:MFS和FFAT工具在评估老年LTC设施居民跌倒风险方面可能没有什么价值。因此,护士应该对每个病人进行临床评估。此外,护士应在入院后的第一周特别强调跌倒风险和预防。独创性/价值:本研究的发现对使用MFS和FFAT工具评估老年LTC设施居民跌倒风险的常见做法的效用提出了质疑,因此强调需要采用不同的方法。
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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