Thomas Dan, Pavic Andrea, Bisaccia Erin, Grotts Jonathan
Cottage Rehabilitation Hospital, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
Rehabil Nurs. 2016 Sep;41(5):253-9. doi: 10.1002/rnj.211. Epub 2015 Mar 28.
To evaluate and compare the Morse Fall Scale (MFS) and the Casa Colina Fall Risk Assessment Scale (CCFRA) for identification of patients at risk for falling in an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. The primary objective of this study was to perform a retrospective validation study of the CCFRAS, specifically for use in the inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) setting.
Retrospective validation study.
The study was approved under expedited review by the local Institutional Review Board. Data were collected on all patients admitted to Cottage Rehabiliation Hospital (CRH), a 38-bed acute inpatient rehabilitation hospital, from March 2012 to August 2013. Patients were excluded from the study if they had a length of stay less than 3 days or age less than 18. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the diagnostic odds ratio were used to examine the differences between the MFS and CCFRAS. AUC between fall scales was compared using the DeLong Test.
There were 931 patients included in the study with 62 (6.7%) patient falls. The average age of the population was 68.8 with 503 males (51.2%). The AUC was 0.595 and 0.713 for the MFS and CCFRAS, respectively (0.006). The diagnostic odds ratio of the MFS was 2.0 and 3.6 for the CCFRAS using the recommended cutoffs of 45 for the MFS and 80 for the CCFRAS.
The CCFRAS appears to be a better tool in detecting fallers vs. nonfallers specific to the IRF setting.
The assessment and identification of patients at high risk for falling is important to implement specific precautions and care for these patients to reduce their risk of falling. The CCFRAS is more clinically relevant in identifying patients at high risk for falling in the IRF setting compared to other fall risk assessments. Implementation of this scale may lead to a reduction in fall rate and injuries from falls as it more appropriately identifies patients at high risk for falling.
评估并比较莫尔斯跌倒量表(MFS)和卡萨科利纳跌倒风险评估量表(CCFRA)在识别急性住院康复机构中跌倒风险患者方面的效果。本研究的主要目的是对CCFRAS进行回顾性验证研究,特别是用于住院康复机构(IRF)环境。
回顾性验证研究。
本研究经当地机构审查委员会快速审查批准。收集了2012年3月至2013年8月期间入住拥有38张床位的急性住院康复医院—— Cottage康复医院(CRH)的所有患者的数据。如果患者住院时间少于3天或年龄小于18岁,则被排除在研究之外。使用受试者工作特征曲线(AUC)下的面积和诊断比值比来检验MFS和CCFRAS之间的差异。使用德龙检验比较跌倒量表之间的AUC。
本研究纳入了931例患者,其中62例(6.7%)患者发生跌倒。研究人群的平均年龄为68.8岁,男性503例(51.2%)。MFS和CCFRAS的AUC分别为0.595和0.713(P = 0.006)。使用MFS推荐的截断值45和CCFRAS推荐的截断值80时,MFS的诊断比值比为2.0,CCFRAS的诊断比值比为3.6。
对于IRF环境中跌倒者与非跌倒者的检测,CCFRAS似乎是一种更好的工具。
评估和识别跌倒高风险患者对于为这些患者实施特定的预防措施和护理以降低其跌倒风险非常重要。与其他跌倒风险评估相比,CCFRAS在识别IRF环境中跌倒高风险患者方面更具临床相关性。实施该量表可能会降低跌倒率和跌倒所致伤害,因为它能更准确地识别跌倒高风险患者。