Older adult fall injuries and the usage of fall screener tools

IF 4.4 2区 工程技术 Q1 ERGONOMICS Journal of Safety Research Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1016/j.jsr.2025.02.019
Dawson S. Dobash , Ramakrishna S. Kakara
{"title":"Older adult fall injuries and the usage of fall screener tools","authors":"Dawson S. Dobash ,&nbsp;Ramakrishna S. Kakara","doi":"10.1016/j.jsr.2025.02.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div><em>Introduction:</em> Older adult (≥65 years) falls are common and may result in severe injuries. There is limited knowledge about what proportion of older adults who fall sustain injuries that need medical attention. Screening is the first step in helping older adults reduce their risk of falls. However, there is limited research on how well current fall screeners can predict fall injuries. <em>Methods:</em> Previously collected data from community-dwelling older adults enrolled in a 13-month long study, from the AmeriSpeak Panel, were analyzed. Baseline survey included questions related to demographics, falls risk factors, and falls risk screeners (CDC’s 3 Key Questions (3KQ) and Stay Independent). Weighted percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of older adults reporting one or more falls, fall-related injuries, falls needing any medical attention, falls resulting in doctor visits, and falls resulting in Emergency Department (ED) visits and/or hospitalization by demographics and fall risk factors were calculated. Risk ratios, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated to compare the two screeners’ ability to predict fall injury outcomes. <em>Results:</em> Among older adults who fell, 24.8% had an injury resulting in any medical attention, 14.5% sought treatment at a doctor’s office, and 14.3% sought treatment at an ED/hospital. Sensitivity estimates for baseline 3KQ and Stay Independent screeners for falls resulting in an ED/hospital visit were 87.3% and 75.0%, respectively. Specificity estimates were 47.4% and 63.6%. <em>Conclusion:</em> At least one in four older adults who fell needed medical attention. The 3KQ or Stay Independent screeners identified a large proportion of older adults who sought treatment at an ED/hospital for falls. However, using them may result in a large number of false positives. <em>Practical Application:</em> Clinicians may use these screeners to identify older adults at high fall injury risk, assess them for specific risk factors, and intervene accordingly.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48224,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Safety Research","volume":"93 ","pages":"Pages 177-184"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Safety Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437525000398","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ERGONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Older adult (≥65 years) falls are common and may result in severe injuries. There is limited knowledge about what proportion of older adults who fall sustain injuries that need medical attention. Screening is the first step in helping older adults reduce their risk of falls. However, there is limited research on how well current fall screeners can predict fall injuries. Methods: Previously collected data from community-dwelling older adults enrolled in a 13-month long study, from the AmeriSpeak Panel, were analyzed. Baseline survey included questions related to demographics, falls risk factors, and falls risk screeners (CDC’s 3 Key Questions (3KQ) and Stay Independent). Weighted percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of older adults reporting one or more falls, fall-related injuries, falls needing any medical attention, falls resulting in doctor visits, and falls resulting in Emergency Department (ED) visits and/or hospitalization by demographics and fall risk factors were calculated. Risk ratios, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated to compare the two screeners’ ability to predict fall injury outcomes. Results: Among older adults who fell, 24.8% had an injury resulting in any medical attention, 14.5% sought treatment at a doctor’s office, and 14.3% sought treatment at an ED/hospital. Sensitivity estimates for baseline 3KQ and Stay Independent screeners for falls resulting in an ED/hospital visit were 87.3% and 75.0%, respectively. Specificity estimates were 47.4% and 63.6%. Conclusion: At least one in four older adults who fell needed medical attention. The 3KQ or Stay Independent screeners identified a large proportion of older adults who sought treatment at an ED/hospital for falls. However, using them may result in a large number of false positives. Practical Application: Clinicians may use these screeners to identify older adults at high fall injury risk, assess them for specific risk factors, and intervene accordingly.
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
老年人跌倒损伤和跌倒筛检工具的使用
老年人(≥65岁)跌倒是常见的,可能导致严重的伤害。关于跌倒的老年人中有多大比例的人受伤需要医疗护理,目前的了解有限。筛查是帮助老年人降低跌倒风险的第一步。然而,关于目前的跌倒筛检器如何预测跌倒损伤的研究有限。方法:先前收集的数据来自社区居住的老年人,他们参加了一项为期13个月的研究,来自AmeriSpeak小组。基线调查包括与人口统计学、跌倒风险因素和跌倒风险筛查相关的问题(CDC的3个关键问题(3KQ)和保持独立)。按人口统计学和跌倒危险因素计算老年人报告一次或多次跌倒、跌倒相关损伤、跌倒需要任何医疗照顾、跌倒导致看医生、跌倒导致急诊和/或住院的加权百分比和95%置信区间(CI)。计算风险比、敏感性、特异性以及阳性和阴性预测值,以比较两种筛选器预测跌倒损伤结果的能力。结果:在跌倒的老年人中,24.8%的人受伤导致就医,14.5%的人在医生办公室寻求治疗,14.3%的人在急诊室/医院寻求治疗。基线3KQ和住院独立筛查对导致急诊科/医院就诊的跌倒的敏感性估计分别为87.3%和75.0%。特异性估计分别为47.4%和63.6%。结论:至少四分之一的老年人跌倒需要医疗护理。3KQ或Stay Independent筛查者发现,很大一部分老年人因跌倒在急诊室或医院寻求治疗。然而,使用它们可能会导致大量的误报。实际应用:临床医生可以使用这些筛选器来识别高跌倒伤害风险的老年人,评估他们的特定风险因素,并进行相应的干预。
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
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
174
审稿时长
61 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Safety Research is an interdisciplinary publication that provides for the exchange of ideas and scientific evidence capturing studies through research in all areas of safety and health, including traffic, workplace, home, and community. This forum invites research using rigorous methodologies, encourages translational research, and engages the global scientific community through various partnerships (e.g., this outreach includes highlighting some of the latest findings from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
期刊最新文献
Towards integrated hazard assessment: Convergence of objective and subjective work environment assessments in manufacturing Do regulatory inspections make workers safer? A bibliometric performance and network analysis of red-light camera impact on signalized intersection safety How machine learning has been used to detect alcohol-induced driver impairment using in-vehicle sensors: A systematic review Adapting to renewable energy: A mixed methods exploration of safety culture and training needs in Australia’s electricity distribution industry
×
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:604180095
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