Background: Falls in hospital are adverse events with serious consequences for the patient. Fall risk assessment requires easy tools that are suitable for the specific clinical context. This is important to quickly identify preventing measures. The aim of the study is to identify an appropriate scale for assessing fall risk in patients from an emergency department. Methods: For the fall risk assessment in the emergency department, three scales were identified in literature: Kinder 1, MEDFRAT, and Morse. MEDFRAT and Morse classify the patient in high, moderate, and low risk; Kinder 1 split patients ‘‘at risk’’ (also when there is only one positive item) and ‘‘non-risk’’ (in which all items are negative). The study was carried out in July 2019 in an Italian emergency department. Patients who arrived in triage were assessed for the fall risk using the three scales. Results: On a sample of 318 patients, the used scales show different levels of fall risk. For Kinder 1, 83.02% is at risk and 16.98% is not at risk; for MEDFRAT, 14.78% is at high risk, 15.09% moderate, and 70.13% low risk; for Morse, 8.81% is at high risk, 35.53% moderate, and 56.66% low risk. As Kinder 1 implies as ‘‘high risk’’ that all items of the questionnaire are positive, to compare Kinder 1 to the other scales with three measurements, we assumed only one positive response as ‘‘moderate risk’’, all negative responses as ‘‘low risk’’. Thus, Kinder 1 shows no cases at high risk, 83.02% moderate risk, and 16.98% low risk. All the scales show that the moderatehigh risk increases with age. MEDFRAT and Morse have concordant percentages for young (13.6%), elderly (61.2%), and long-lived (66.6%) people. Kinder 1, 59%, 96.7%, and 100%, respectively. Conclusions: The comparison between scales shows inhomogeneity in identifying the level of risk. MEDFRAT and Morse appear more reliable and consistent. Key messages: An appropriate assessment scale is important to identify the fall risk level. Identifying accurate fall risk levels allows for implementing specific prevention actions.
Comparison of fall risk assessment scales in the triage of an Italian emergency department / Piras, I; Murenu, G; Piras, G; Pia, G; Azara, A; Piana, A; Galletta, M. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH. - ISSN 1101-1262. - 30:Supplement_5(2020), pp. 1016-1016. (Intervento presentato al convegno 16th World Congress on Public Health 2020 Public Health for the future of humanity: analysis, advocacy and action tenutosi a virtuale on line nel 13-17 Ottobre 2020) [10.1093/eurpub/ckaa166.1302].
Comparison of fall risk assessment scales in the triage of an Italian emergency department
Piras, I;Azara, A;Piana, A;
2020-01-01
Abstract
Background: Falls in hospital are adverse events with serious consequences for the patient. Fall risk assessment requires easy tools that are suitable for the specific clinical context. This is important to quickly identify preventing measures. The aim of the study is to identify an appropriate scale for assessing fall risk in patients from an emergency department. Methods: For the fall risk assessment in the emergency department, three scales were identified in literature: Kinder 1, MEDFRAT, and Morse. MEDFRAT and Morse classify the patient in high, moderate, and low risk; Kinder 1 split patients ‘‘at risk’’ (also when there is only one positive item) and ‘‘non-risk’’ (in which all items are negative). The study was carried out in July 2019 in an Italian emergency department. Patients who arrived in triage were assessed for the fall risk using the three scales. Results: On a sample of 318 patients, the used scales show different levels of fall risk. For Kinder 1, 83.02% is at risk and 16.98% is not at risk; for MEDFRAT, 14.78% is at high risk, 15.09% moderate, and 70.13% low risk; for Morse, 8.81% is at high risk, 35.53% moderate, and 56.66% low risk. As Kinder 1 implies as ‘‘high risk’’ that all items of the questionnaire are positive, to compare Kinder 1 to the other scales with three measurements, we assumed only one positive response as ‘‘moderate risk’’, all negative responses as ‘‘low risk’’. Thus, Kinder 1 shows no cases at high risk, 83.02% moderate risk, and 16.98% low risk. All the scales show that the moderatehigh risk increases with age. MEDFRAT and Morse have concordant percentages for young (13.6%), elderly (61.2%), and long-lived (66.6%) people. Kinder 1, 59%, 96.7%, and 100%, respectively. Conclusions: The comparison between scales shows inhomogeneity in identifying the level of risk. MEDFRAT and Morse appear more reliable and consistent. Key messages: An appropriate assessment scale is important to identify the fall risk level. Identifying accurate fall risk levels allows for implementing specific prevention actions.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.