M M C Wong, P F Pang, C F Chan, M S Lau, W Y Tse, L C W Lam, S K L Lee, J Tsoh, C T Y Yan
{"title":"Wilson Sims跌倒风险评估工具与Morse跌倒量表在老年精神科住院患者中的比较:一项多中心研究。","authors":"M M C Wong, P F Pang, C F Chan, M S Lau, W Y Tse, L C W Lam, S K L Lee, J Tsoh, C T Y Yan","doi":"10.12809/eaap2113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare predictive validity of the Wilson Sims Fall Risk Assessment Tool (WSFRAT) with that of the Morse Fall Scale (MFS) in psychogeriatric inpatients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Psychogeriatric patients from Shatin Hospital, Tai Po Hospital, Castle Peak Hospital, and United Christian Hospital who had fall incident between April 2019 and April 2020 were identified. Their fall risks were assessed by the WSFRAT and the MFS, and their falls incidents during hospitalisation were recorded. Patients were classified as having high fall risk when their MFS score was ≥45 and when their WSFRAT score was ≥7. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the two scales were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 183 (90 male and 93 female) psychogeriatric patients aged ≥65 years who had fall incident and were assessed by both the WSFRAT and the MFS during the study period. Among the 183 patients, four sustained a fall during hospital stay, giving a prevalence of 2.19%. All four patients were classified as having high risk of fall by WSFRAT, but only two of them were classified so by MFS. The sensitivity of WSFRAT was 100%, which was higher than the 50% by MFS, but specificity of MFS was higher than that of WSFRAT (45.81% vs 54.75%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>WSFRAT is a better fall risk assessment scale for psychiatric inpatients than MFS, because of higher sensitivity (100% vs 50%). It has items specific to psychiatric patients and should replace MFS in psychiatric settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":39171,"journal":{"name":"East Asian Archives of Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wilson Sims Fall Risk Assessment Tool Versus Morse Fall Scale in Psychogeriatric Inpatients: a Multicentre Study.\",\"authors\":\"M M C Wong, P F Pang, C F Chan, M S Lau, W Y Tse, L C W Lam, S K L Lee, J Tsoh, C T Y Yan\",\"doi\":\"10.12809/eaap2113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare predictive validity of the Wilson Sims Fall Risk Assessment Tool (WSFRAT) with that of the Morse Fall Scale (MFS) in psychogeriatric inpatients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Psychogeriatric patients from Shatin Hospital, Tai Po Hospital, Castle Peak Hospital, and United Christian Hospital who had fall incident between April 2019 and April 2020 were identified. Their fall risks were assessed by the WSFRAT and the MFS, and their falls incidents during hospitalisation were recorded. Patients were classified as having high fall risk when their MFS score was ≥45 and when their WSFRAT score was ≥7. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the two scales were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 183 (90 male and 93 female) psychogeriatric patients aged ≥65 years who had fall incident and were assessed by both the WSFRAT and the MFS during the study period. Among the 183 patients, four sustained a fall during hospital stay, giving a prevalence of 2.19%. All four patients were classified as having high risk of fall by WSFRAT, but only two of them were classified so by MFS. The sensitivity of WSFRAT was 100%, which was higher than the 50% by MFS, but specificity of MFS was higher than that of WSFRAT (45.81% vs 54.75%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>WSFRAT is a better fall risk assessment scale for psychiatric inpatients than MFS, because of higher sensitivity (100% vs 50%). It has items specific to psychiatric patients and should replace MFS in psychiatric settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39171,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"East Asian Archives of Psychiatry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"East Asian Archives of Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12809/eaap2113\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East Asian Archives of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12809/eaap2113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
目的:比较Wilson Sims跌倒风险评估工具(WSFRAT)与Morse跌倒量表(MFS)对老年精神科住院患者的预测效度。方法:选取2019年4月至2020年4月期间在沙田医院、大埔医院、青山医院和基督教联合医院发生跌倒事件的老年精神科患者。WSFRAT和MFS对他们的跌倒风险进行了评估,并记录了他们在住院期间的跌倒事件。当MFS评分≥45分和WSFRAT评分≥7分时,患者被归为高跌倒风险。计算两种量表的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。结果:我们确定了183例(男性90例,女性93例)年龄≥65岁的有跌倒事件的老年心理患者,并在研究期间通过WSFRAT和MFS进行了评估。183例患者中有4例在住院期间跌倒,患病率为2.19%。所有4例患者均被WSFRAT分类为跌倒高风险,但其中只有2例被MFS分类为跌倒高风险。WSFRAT的敏感性为100%,高于MFS的50%,但MFS的特异性高于WSFRAT (45.81% vs 54.75%)。结论:WSFRAT比MFS具有更高的敏感性(100% vs 50%),是一种更好的精神科住院患者跌倒风险评估量表。它有专门针对精神病患者的项目,应该取代精神科环境中的MFS。
Wilson Sims Fall Risk Assessment Tool Versus Morse Fall Scale in Psychogeriatric Inpatients: a Multicentre Study.
Objective: To compare predictive validity of the Wilson Sims Fall Risk Assessment Tool (WSFRAT) with that of the Morse Fall Scale (MFS) in psychogeriatric inpatients.
Methods: Psychogeriatric patients from Shatin Hospital, Tai Po Hospital, Castle Peak Hospital, and United Christian Hospital who had fall incident between April 2019 and April 2020 were identified. Their fall risks were assessed by the WSFRAT and the MFS, and their falls incidents during hospitalisation were recorded. Patients were classified as having high fall risk when their MFS score was ≥45 and when their WSFRAT score was ≥7. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the two scales were calculated.
Results: We identified 183 (90 male and 93 female) psychogeriatric patients aged ≥65 years who had fall incident and were assessed by both the WSFRAT and the MFS during the study period. Among the 183 patients, four sustained a fall during hospital stay, giving a prevalence of 2.19%. All four patients were classified as having high risk of fall by WSFRAT, but only two of them were classified so by MFS. The sensitivity of WSFRAT was 100%, which was higher than the 50% by MFS, but specificity of MFS was higher than that of WSFRAT (45.81% vs 54.75%).
Conclusion: WSFRAT is a better fall risk assessment scale for psychiatric inpatients than MFS, because of higher sensitivity (100% vs 50%). It has items specific to psychiatric patients and should replace MFS in psychiatric settings.