Get access

Evaluation of three fall-risk assessment tools in an acute care setting

Authors

  • Emily Ang Neo Kim,

    1. Emily Ang Neo Kim BSN MHSc RN CCNC
      DNurs Candidate University of Adelaide, South Australia; Deputy Director (Clinical and Oncology Nursing), The Cancer Institute, National University Hospital, Singapore
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Siti Zubaidah Mordiffi,

    1. Siti Zubaidah Mordiffi BN MHlthSc RN OTNC
      Assistant Director Department of Nursing, National University Hospital, Singapore
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Wong Hwee Bee,

    1. Wong Hwee Bee BSc MSc
      Senior Biostatistician
      Clinical Trial and Epidemiology Research Unit, Singapore
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kamala Devi,

    1. Kamala Devi RN BHSc(N) MSc
      Deputy Manager
      Nursing Clinical Development, School of Health Sciences, Nanyang Polytechnic, Singapore
    Search for more papers by this author
  • David Evans

    1. David Evans PhD RN DipN BN MNS
      Program Director Research Degrees, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author

N.K.E. Ang: e-mail: emily_nk_ang@nuh.com.sg

Abstract

Title. Evaluation of three fall-risk assessment tools in an acute care setting

Aim.  This paper is a report of a study to evaluate the validity of three fall-risk assessment tools to identify patients at high risk for falls.

Background.  Patient falls make up 38% of all adverse events occurring in hospital settings, and may result in physical injury and undesirable emotional and financial outcomes. No single fall-risk assessment tool has been conclusively validated.

Method.  The Morse Fall Scale, St Thomas Risk Assessment Tool in Falling Elderly Inpatients, and Hendrich II Fall Risk Model were validated in inter-rater reliability and validity studies in 2003. This included assessment of the probability of disagreement, κ-values, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values and negative predictive values of the assessment tools with the associated 95% CI.

Findings.  One hundred and forty-four patients were recruited for the inter-rater reliability study. The probabilities of disagreement were between 2·8% and 9·7%, and 95% CI for all tools ranged from 1·1% to 15·7%. The κ-values were all higher than 0·80. In the validity study, 5489 patients were recruited to observe 60 falls. The Morse Fall Scale at a cutoff score of 25 and Heindrich II Fall Risk Model at a cutoff score of 5 had strong sensitivity values of 88% and 70%, respectively. However, in comparison with the Morse Fall Scale (specificity = 48·3%), only the Heindrich II Fall Risk Model had a more acceptable level of specificity (61·5%).

Conclusion.  The Heindrich II Fall Risk Model is potentially useful in identifying patients at high risk for falls in acute care facilities.

Ancillary