Greenberg Marna, Jacoby Jeanne, Barraco Robert D, Yazdanyar Ali R, Surmaitis Ryan M, Youngdahl Alexander, Chow Richard B, Murillo Sofia M, Zeng Allen H, Kane Bryan G
Department of Emergency and Hospital Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, USA.
Department of Surgery, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, USA.
Cureus. 2021 Apr 13;13(4):e14471. doi: 10.7759/cureus.14471.
Introduction Falls are the leading cause of injury-related death among older adults according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Falls Efficacy Scale (FES) and Vulnerable Elder Survey (VES-13) are validated screening tools used to assess concern of falling, health deterioration and functional decline. We set out to determine if the FES or VES-13 could serve as a predictor of falls among older adults in the Emergency Department (ED) setting. Methods This prospective pilot cohort study was conducted at a Level 1 Trauma Center. ED patients aged ≥65 were eligible for the study if they had a mechanical fall risk defined by CDC criteria. After consent and enrollment, FES and the VES surveys were completed. Participants were followed by phone quarterly, and results of the one-year follow-up self-report of fall history described. Results There were 200 subjects enrolled and after excluding those that were withdrawn, deceased, or lost to follow-up, 184 were available for analysis of their follow-up visit at 12 months. A greater proportion of the participants were women (108 (58.7%) vs 76 (41.3%); P=0.88). The average age of the study participants was 74.2±7.3 years. There was no significant difference in age between men and women (median: 73 vs 73; p=0.47). At the follow-up visit, 33 (17.9%) had a reported fall. The mean age did not significantly differ when comparing those with versus without a fall (75.6 vs 73.9; p=0.24). There was no significant difference in the proportion with a VES-13 ≥ 3 when comparing those with and without a reported fall (45.5% vs 37.8%; p = 0.41). The median FES score did not differ among those with as compared to without a fall (11 vs 10; p=0.12). Conclusions Subjects who had a VES-13 score of ≥3 were statistically no more likely to have fallen than those with a score of <3. Additionally, the FES score did not statistically differ when comparing those who had fallen to those who had not. Further research into alternative screening methods in the ED setting for fall risk is recommended.
引言 根据美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)的数据,跌倒是老年人与伤害相关死亡的主要原因。跌倒效能量表(FES)和脆弱老年人调查(VES - 13)是经过验证的筛查工具,用于评估对跌倒的担忧、健康恶化和功能衰退情况。我们旨在确定FES或VES - 13是否可作为急诊科(ED)环境中老年人跌倒的预测指标。
方法 这项前瞻性试点队列研究在一家一级创伤中心进行。年龄≥65岁的急诊科患者,若符合CDC标准定义的机械性跌倒风险,则有资格参与本研究。在获得同意并登记入组后,完成FES和VES调查。每季度通过电话对参与者进行随访,并描述一年随访期内跌倒史的自我报告结果。
结果 共纳入200名受试者,在排除退出、死亡或失访的受试者后,184名受试者可用于分析其12个月的随访情况。女性参与者比例更高(108名(58.7%)对76名(41.3%);P = 0.88)。研究参与者的平均年龄为74.2±7.3岁。男性和女性在年龄上无显著差异(中位数:73岁对73岁;p = 0.47)。在随访时,33名(17.9%)报告有跌倒。比较有跌倒和无跌倒者时,平均年龄无显著差异(75.6岁对73.9岁;p = 0.24)。比较有跌倒报告和无跌倒报告者时,VES - 13≥3的比例无显著差异(45.5%对37.8%;p = 0.41)。有跌倒和无跌倒者的FES中位数得分无差异(11对10;p = 0.12)。
结论 VES - 13得分≥3的受试者在统计学上并不比得分<3的受试者更易跌倒。此外,比较跌倒者和未跌倒者时FES得分在统计学上无差异。建议对急诊科环境中跌倒风险的替代筛查方法进行进一步研究。