[Scale Mosaic: definition and testing of a tool for assessing the risk of falling and the care planning during hospitalization].

INTRODUCTION

in year 2008 the Ausl of Ravenna had a small number of patients at risk among the patients fallen, and among the patients evaluated with risk for fall. This could be due to the rating scale used (Conley) that does not recognize the risk factors "drug therapy" and "conditions clinical care".

OBJECTIVES

to experiment a rating scale (Mosaic), to evaluate the performance indicators compared to the scales Conley, Fall Risk Assessment Scoring System (FRASS), Stratity; evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken to manage the risk; Operators remain vigilant about the risk falls.

METHODOLOGY

using the scale Mosaic for patients admitted in 16 Hospital Units for two-months. Performance indicators: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative. Studies considered for comparison: Hospital (AO) Bologna for Conley, AO Bologna and AO Niguarda Cà Granda Milan for Stratify, AO Bergamo for FRASS.

RESULTS

were analyzed 1474 tabs. Males are 848 (57.5%) and females 626 (43.5%), the average age is 70.8 years. Of these 42 patients have fallen (2.8%), including 25 males and 17 females and the average age is 72.2. Are not at risk 426 (29%) patients and at risk 1048 (71%) patients. In other assessments the patients at risk was 31% in AUSL Ravenna, 59% (Conley) and 13% (Stratify) in AO Bologna and 41.5% (FRASS) in AO Bergamo. The scale Mosaic has a sensitivity of 0.98 (Conley, Stratify and FRASS amounted to 0.69, to 0.20, to 0.50), a specificity of 0.30 (Conley, Stratify and FRASS amounted to 0.41, 0.87, 0.59.) The patients fallen are at risk in 41 cases (97%) and of these 24 low-risk. The most frequent risk factors are: "mobility and gait" (1209 items), "drug therapy" (850 items) , "conditions clinical care" (841 items). Planned actions have an average of 2.2 in patients fallen, of 3.5 in low-risk patients and of 4.48 in patients at high risk. Compared with the previous year shows a decrease of 14 falls and an increase in the level of outcome "no one" (from 61% to 73.5%).

DISCUSSION

the greater number of falls occur among low-risk patients, the average number of shares increases with increasing levels of risk and decreases in the patients fallen. Patients are at increased risk and therefore, in the hospital, it is essential to evaluate the factors drug therapy and conditions clinical care. The scale Mosaic has a very good performance for the sensitivity but not the specificity. The indicators in the studies are very different. This poses a reflection: what is the sense of the indicators when the rated instrument is part of a multifactorial prevention project whose implementation, usually, improves the level of security by preventing the occurrence of the event? Analysis of the tool can not be based only on numerical data. The true value of each scale is the level of attention that triggers in Health Care Workers, which activate preventive measures that allow an efficient management of risk.

CONCLUSION

the card Mosaic has been adopted in Ausl because it improved the level of security of patients with risk of fall.