Predicting posthospitalization falls in Brazilian older adults: External validation of the Carpenter instrument.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-07 DOI:10.1111/acem.14888
Pedro K Curiati, Marcela Dos S Arruda, Christopher R Carpenter, Christian V Morinaga, Hugo M A Melo, Thiago J Avelino-Silva, Marlon R Aliberti
{"title":"Predicting posthospitalization falls in Brazilian older adults: External validation of the Carpenter instrument.","authors":"Pedro K Curiati, Marcela Dos S Arruda, Christopher R Carpenter, Christian V Morinaga, Hugo M A Melo, Thiago J Avelino-Silva, Marlon R Aliberti","doi":"10.1111/acem.14888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study sought to explore and externally validate the Carpenter instrument's efficacy in predicting postdischarge fall risk among older adults admitted to the emergency department (ED) for reasons other than falls or related injuries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective cohort study was conducted on 779 patients aged ≥ 65 years from a tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, who were monitored for up to 6 months post-ED hospitalization. The Carpenter instrument, which evaluates the four risk factors nonhealing foot sores, self-reported depression, inability to self-clip toenails, and prior falls, was utilized to assess fall risk. Follow-up by telephone occurred at 30, 90, and 180 days to identify falls and mortality. Fine-Gray models estimated the predictive power of Carpenter instrument for future falls, considering death as a competing event and sociodemographic factors, frail status, and clinical measures as confounders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 779 patients, 68 (9%) experienced a fall within 180 days post-ED admission, and 88 (11%) died. The majority were male (54%), with a mean age of 79 years. Upon utilizing the Carpenter score, those with a higher fall risk (≥2 points) displayed more comorbidities, greater frailty, and increased clinical severity at baseline. Regression analyses showed that every additional point on the Carpenter score increased the hazard of falls by 73%. Two primary contributors to its predictive potential were identified: a history of falls in the preceding year and an inability to self-clip toenails. However, the instrument's discriminative accuracy was suboptimal, with an area under the curve of 0.62.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While the Carpenter instrument associated with a higher 6-month postadmission fall risk among older adults post-ED visit, its accuracy for individual patient decision making was limited. Given the significant impact of falls on health outcomes and health care costs, refining risk assessment tools remains essential. Future research should focus on enhancing these assessments and devising targeted proactive strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.14888","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to explore and externally validate the Carpenter instrument's efficacy in predicting postdischarge fall risk among older adults admitted to the emergency department (ED) for reasons other than falls or related injuries.

Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted on 779 patients aged ≥ 65 years from a tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, who were monitored for up to 6 months post-ED hospitalization. The Carpenter instrument, which evaluates the four risk factors nonhealing foot sores, self-reported depression, inability to self-clip toenails, and prior falls, was utilized to assess fall risk. Follow-up by telephone occurred at 30, 90, and 180 days to identify falls and mortality. Fine-Gray models estimated the predictive power of Carpenter instrument for future falls, considering death as a competing event and sociodemographic factors, frail status, and clinical measures as confounders.

Results: Among 779 patients, 68 (9%) experienced a fall within 180 days post-ED admission, and 88 (11%) died. The majority were male (54%), with a mean age of 79 years. Upon utilizing the Carpenter score, those with a higher fall risk (≥2 points) displayed more comorbidities, greater frailty, and increased clinical severity at baseline. Regression analyses showed that every additional point on the Carpenter score increased the hazard of falls by 73%. Two primary contributors to its predictive potential were identified: a history of falls in the preceding year and an inability to self-clip toenails. However, the instrument's discriminative accuracy was suboptimal, with an area under the curve of 0.62.

Conclusions: While the Carpenter instrument associated with a higher 6-month postadmission fall risk among older adults post-ED visit, its accuracy for individual patient decision making was limited. Given the significant impact of falls on health outcomes and health care costs, refining risk assessment tools remains essential. Future research should focus on enhancing these assessments and devising targeted proactive strategies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
巴西老年人住院后跌倒的预测:Carpenter工具的外部验证。
研究目的:本研究旨在探索并从外部验证 Carpenter 工具在预测因跌倒或相关伤害以外的原因而入住急诊科(ED)的老年人出院后跌倒风险方面的有效性:对巴西圣保罗一家三甲医院的 779 名年龄≥ 65 岁的患者进行了前瞻性队列研究,这些患者在急诊科住院后接受了长达 6 个月的监测。Carpenter 工具用于评估跌倒风险,该工具评估了足部溃疡不愈合、自我报告的抑郁、无法自行夹脚趾甲和之前跌倒这四个风险因素。在 30 天、90 天和 180 天进行电话随访,以确定跌倒和死亡率。Fine-Gray 模型估算了 Carpenter 工具对未来跌倒的预测能力,将死亡作为竞争事件,将社会人口因素、虚弱状态和临床指标作为混杂因素:在 779 名患者中,有 68 人(9%)在入院后 180 天内跌倒,88 人(11%)死亡。大多数患者为男性(54%),平均年龄为 79 岁。根据卡朋特评分,跌倒风险较高(≥2 分)的患者在基线时有更多的合并症、更虚弱、临床严重程度更高。回归分析表明,卡彭特评分每增加一分,跌倒风险就会增加 73%。卡彭特评分的预测潜力主要取决于两个因素:前一年的跌倒史和无法自行夹脚趾甲。然而,该工具的判别准确性并不理想,曲线下面积为 0.62:虽然 Carpenter 工具与老年人在急诊就诊后 6 个月内跌倒风险较高有关,但其对患者个人决策的准确性有限。鉴于跌倒对健康结果和医疗成本的重大影响,完善风险评估工具仍然至关重要。未来的研究应侧重于加强这些评估并制定有针对性的前瞻性策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Discharge instruction comprehension by older adults in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta‐analysis A little glitter goes a long way. Characterizing Spanish-speaking patients' patient-centered care experiences in the emergency department. Long guidewire peripheral intravenous catheters in emergency departments for management of difficult intravenous access: A multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. December.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1