Breisinger Terry P, Skidmore Elizabeth R, Niyonkuru Christian, Terhorst Lauren, Campbell Grace B
UPMC Rehabilitation Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Centers for Rehab Services, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Pittsburgh School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Clin Rehabil. 2014 Dec;28(12):1218-24. doi: 10.1177/0269215514534276. Epub 2014 May 21.
To evaluate relative accuracy of a newly developed Stroke Assessment of Fall Risk (SAFR) for classifying fallers and non-fallers, compared with a health system fall risk screening tool, the Fall Harm Risk Screen.
Prospective quality improvement study conducted at an inpatient stroke rehabilitation unit at a large urban university hospital.
Patients admitted for inpatient stroke rehabilitation (N = 419) with imaging or clinical evidence of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2010.
Not applicable.
Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve for Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves of both scales' classifications, based on fall risk score completed upon admission to inpatient stroke rehabilitation.
A total of 68 (16%) participants fell at least once. The SAFR was significantly more accurate than the Fall Harm Risk Screen (p < 0.001), with area under the curve of 0.73, positive predictive value of 0.29, and negative predictive value of 0.94. For the Fall Harm Risk Screen, area under the curve was 0.56, positive predictive value was 0.19, and negative predictive value was 0.86. Sensitivity and specificity of the SAFR (0.78 and 0.63, respectively) was higher than the Fall Harm Risk Screen (0.57 and 0.48, respectively).
An evidence-derived, population-specific fall risk assessment may more accurately predict fallers than a general fall risk screen for stroke rehabilitation patients. While the SAFR improves upon the accuracy of a general assessment tool, additional refinement may be warranted.
与一种卫生系统跌倒风险筛查工具——跌倒伤害风险筛查(Fall Harm Risk Screen)相比,评估新开发的卒中跌倒风险评估(Stroke Assessment of Fall Risk,SAFR)在区分跌倒者和非跌倒者方面的相对准确性。
在一所大型城市大学医院的住院卒中康复单元进行的前瞻性质量改进研究。
2009年8月1日至2010年7月31日期间因缺血性或出血性卒中的影像学或临床证据而入院接受住院卒中康复治疗的患者(N = 419)。
不适用。
基于住院卒中康复入院时完成的跌倒风险评分,两种量表分类的接受者操作特征曲线的敏感性、特异性和曲线下面积。
共有68名(16%)参与者至少跌倒过一次。SAFR比跌倒伤害风险筛查显著更准确(p < 0.001),曲线下面积为0.73,阳性预测值为0.29,阴性预测值为0.94。对于跌倒伤害风险筛查,曲线下面积为0.56,阳性预测值为0.19,阴性预测值为0.86。SAFR的敏感性和特异性(分别为0.78和0.63)高于跌倒伤害风险筛查(分别为0.57和0.48)。
对于卒中康复患者,基于证据得出的、针对特定人群的跌倒风险评估可能比一般的跌倒风险筛查更准确地预测跌倒者。虽然SAFR提高了一般评估工具的准确性,但可能仍需要进一步完善。