• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

两种针对亚急性护理中跌倒预防的跌倒风险评估工具(FRATs)的比较。

Comparison of two fall risk assessment tools (FRATs) targeting falls prevention in sub-acute care.

机构信息

Ballarat Health Services, 102 Ascot St. South, Ballarat, Victoria 3350, Australia.

出版信息

Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012 Nov-Dec;55(3):653-9. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2012.05.003. Epub 2012 Jun 1.

DOI:10.1016/j.archger.2012.05.003
PMID:22658287
Abstract

FRATs are designed to identify both persons at high risk of falls and to allow for cost-effective targeting of fall prevention strategies. This study compares two FRATs (BHS FRAT and TNH-STRATIFY) for accuracy of predicting falls and targeting of fall prevention strategies in a sub-acute hospital. Comparisons of retrospective audit data over two periods (use of the BHS-FRAT; post TNH-STRATIFY implementation) were used in the evaluation (n=362). Inter-rater reliability of the TNH-STRATIFY was evaluated from independent assessment by two nurses for 30 sub-acute patients and using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(2,1)). Event rate (ER) and standard measures of predictive accuracy were calculated for both FRATs. The proportions of patients with documented fall prevention strategies addressing identified fall risk factors were compared between audit phases. The TNH-STRATIFY had high inter-rater reliability (ICC(2,1)=0.96). The BHS-FRAT and TNH-STRATIFY demonstrated poor predictive accuracy using recommended high risk cut-off scores, with low specificity(ER) (0.07 and 0.13 respectively) and very low Youden Index(ER) (0.04 and 0.07 respectively), although these measures improved using modified cut-off scores. Positive and negative predictive values were moderate for the BHS-FRAT (0.51, 0.64) and TNH-STRATIFY (0.52, 0.61). The falls rate and proportion of recurrent fallers did not change between audit phases. Implementation rates for prevention strategies for key risk factors were higher following implementation of the TNH-STRATIFY. The results indicated that the TNH-STRATIFY, combined with associated nursing care plan falls documentation, improved the targeting of prevention strategies for key risk factors such as cognitive impairment, incontinence and mobility impairment.

摘要

FRATs 旨在识别高跌倒风险人群,并针对跌倒预防策略进行具有成本效益的目标定位。本研究比较了两种 FRATs(BHS FRAT 和 TNH-STRATIFY)在亚急性医院预测跌倒和针对跌倒预防策略的准确性。使用两个时期的回顾性审核数据(BHS-FRAT 的使用;TNH-STRATIFY 实施后)进行评估(n=362)。使用两个护士对 30 名亚急性患者进行独立评估,使用组内相关系数(ICC(2,1))评估 TNH-STRATIFY 的组内可靠性。计算了两种 FRAT 的事件率(ER)和预测准确性的标准指标。比较了审核阶段之间记录的针对识别出的跌倒风险因素的跌倒预防策略的患者比例。TNH-STRATIFY 的组内可靠性高(ICC(2,1)=0.96)。BHS-FRAT 和 TNH-STRATIFY 使用推荐的高风险截断分数表现出较差的预测准确性,特异性低(ER)(分别为 0.07 和 0.13)和非常低的 Youden 指数(ER)(分别为 0.04 和 0.07),尽管使用修改后的截断分数这些措施有所改善。BHS-FRAT 的阳性和阴性预测值适中(0.51,0.64)和 TNH-STRATIFY(0.52,0.61)。审核阶段之间的跌倒率和复发性跌倒者比例没有变化。在实施 TNH-STRATIFY 后,针对关键风险因素的预防策略的实施率更高。结果表明,TNH-STRATIFY 结合相关的护理计划跌倒文件,提高了针对认知障碍、尿失禁和活动能力受损等关键风险因素的预防策略的针对性。

相似文献

1
Comparison of two fall risk assessment tools (FRATs) targeting falls prevention in sub-acute care.两种针对亚急性护理中跌倒预防的跌倒风险评估工具(FRATs)的比较。
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012 Nov-Dec;55(3):653-9. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2012.05.003. Epub 2012 Jun 1.
2
Four-item fall risk screening tool for subacute and residential aged care: The first step in fall prevention.用于亚急性和住院老年护理的四项跌倒风险筛查工具:预防跌倒的第一步。
Australas J Ageing. 2009 Sep;28(3):139-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6612.2009.00375.x.
3
Validation and inter-rater reliability of a three item falls risk screening tool.验证和三项跌倒风险筛查工具的组内信度。
BMC Geriatr. 2017 Nov 23;17(1):273. doi: 10.1186/s12877-017-0669-z.
4
Relationship between occurrence of falls and fall-risk scores in an acute care setting using the Hendrich II fall risk model.在急性护理环境中使用亨德里希二世跌倒风险模型时跌倒发生率与跌倒风险评分之间的关系。
Medsurg Nurs. 2013 May-Jun;22(3):180-7.
5
Local adaptation and evaluation of a falls risk prevention approach in acute hospitals.在急性医院中进行跌倒预防方法的本土化适应和评估。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2011 Apr;23(2):134-41. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzq075. Epub 2010 Dec 3.
6
A new instrument for targeting falls prevention interventions was accurate and clinically applicable in a hospital setting.一种用于针对性预防跌倒干预的新仪器在医院环境中准确且具有临床适用性。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Feb;59(2):168-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.017.
7
Evaluation of three fall-risk assessment tools in an acute care setting.在急性护理环境中对三种跌倒风险评估工具的评估。
J Adv Nurs. 2007 Nov;60(4):427-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04419.x.
8
The reliability and predictive accuracy of the falls risk for older people in the community assessment (FROP-Com) tool.社区老年人跌倒风险评估工具(FROP-Com)的可靠性和预测准确性。
Age Ageing. 2008 Nov;37(6):634-9. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afn129. Epub 2008 Jun 19.
9
The validity of three fall risk screening tools in an acute geriatric inpatient population.三种跌倒风险筛查工具在老年急性住院患者群体中的有效性。
Australas J Ageing. 2016 Sep;35(3):167-73. doi: 10.1111/ajag.12256. Epub 2016 Mar 15.
10
The STRATIFY tool and clinical judgment were poor predictors of falling in an acute hospital setting.STRATIFY 工具和临床判断对急性医院环境中的跌倒预测效果不佳。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jan;63(1):109-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.003. Epub 2009 Apr 23.

引用本文的文献

1
Current Cut Points of Three Falls Risk Assessment Tools Are Inferior to Calculated Cut Points in Geriatric Evaluation and Management Units.在老年评估与管理单元中,三种跌倒风险评估工具的当前切点不如计算得出的切点。
Muscles. 2023 Jul 7;2(3):250-270. doi: 10.3390/muscles2030019.
2
The use and usefulness of the Peninsula Health Falls Risk Assessment Tool (PHFRAT) process in residential aged care: a mixed methods study across 25 aged care facilities.《半岛卫生跌倒风险评估工具(PHFRAT)在养老院中的使用和有效性:25 家养老院的混合方法研究》
BMC Geriatr. 2024 Oct 24;24(1):869. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-05462-8.
3
Validation and Improvement of the Saga Fall Risk Model: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study.
验证和改进 Saga 跌倒风险模型:一项多中心回顾性观察研究。
Clin Interv Aging. 2024 Feb 7;19:175-188. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S441235. eCollection 2024.
4
Fall Risk Assessment Scales: A Systematic Literature Review.跌倒风险评估量表:一项系统文献综述
Nurs Rep. 2021 Jun 2;11(2):430-443. doi: 10.3390/nursrep11020041.