Predicting Falls in Rehabilitation: A Comparison of Three Instruments Including Hester Davis.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 NURSING Rehabilitation Nursing Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1097/RNJ.0000000000000421
Erin Y Harmon, Michele C Cournan, Amy E Teale
{"title":"Predicting Falls in Rehabilitation: A Comparison of Three Instruments Including Hester Davis.","authors":"Erin Y Harmon,&nbsp;Michele C Cournan,&nbsp;Amy E Teale","doi":"10.1097/RNJ.0000000000000421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of the Hester Davis Scale (HDS), Section GG, and facility fall risk assessment scores to predict patients who fall during inpatient rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This study was an observational quality improvement project.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nurses administered the HDS in parallel to the facility's current fall risk assessment and Section GG of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Patient Assessment Instrument. Receiver operating characteristic curves were compared in 1,645 patients. Relationships of individual scale items to falls were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The HDS (area under the curve [AUC] = .680, 95% CI [.626, .734]), facility fall risk assessment (AUC = .688, 95% CI [.637, .740]), and Section GG scores (AUC = .687, 95% CI [.638, .735]) adequately identified patients who fell. AUCs did not significantly differ between assessments. HDS scores of ≥13, facility scores of ≥14, and Section GG scores of ≤51 resulted in the highest sensitivity/specificity balance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HDS, facility fall risk assessment, and Section GG scores adequately and similarly identified patients of mixed diagnoses at risk of falling in inpatient rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance to the practice of rehabilitation nursing: </strong>Rehabilitation nurses have several options including the HDS and Section GG to identify patients at greatest risk of falling.</p>","PeriodicalId":49631,"journal":{"name":"Rehabilitation Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rehabilitation Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RNJ.0000000000000421","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of the Hester Davis Scale (HDS), Section GG, and facility fall risk assessment scores to predict patients who fall during inpatient rehabilitation.

Design: This study was an observational quality improvement project.

Methods: Nurses administered the HDS in parallel to the facility's current fall risk assessment and Section GG of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Patient Assessment Instrument. Receiver operating characteristic curves were compared in 1,645 patients. Relationships of individual scale items to falls were also assessed.

Results: The HDS (area under the curve [AUC] = .680, 95% CI [.626, .734]), facility fall risk assessment (AUC = .688, 95% CI [.637, .740]), and Section GG scores (AUC = .687, 95% CI [.638, .735]) adequately identified patients who fell. AUCs did not significantly differ between assessments. HDS scores of ≥13, facility scores of ≥14, and Section GG scores of ≤51 resulted in the highest sensitivity/specificity balance.

Conclusions: HDS, facility fall risk assessment, and Section GG scores adequately and similarly identified patients of mixed diagnoses at risk of falling in inpatient rehabilitation.

Clinical relevance to the practice of rehabilitation nursing: Rehabilitation nurses have several options including the HDS and Section GG to identify patients at greatest risk of falling.

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
预测康复中的跌倒:包括海丝特·戴维斯在内的三种仪器的比较。
目的:本研究的目的是评估海丝特戴维斯量表(HDS)、GG部分和设施跌倒风险评估评分对住院康复期间患者跌倒的预测能力。设计:本研究为观察性质量改善项目。方法:护士将HDS与医院当前的跌倒风险评估和医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心住院康复设施患者评估工具的GG部分同时进行。比较1,645例患者的受试者工作特征曲线。个别量表项目与跌倒的关系也进行了评估。结果:HDS(曲线下面积[AUC] = .680, 95% CI[。626, .734]),设施坠落风险评估(AUC = .688, 95% CI[。637, .740]), Section GG评分(AUC = .687, 95% CI[。[638, .735])充分地识别出跌倒的病人。评估间auc无显著差异。HDS评分≥13,facility评分≥14,Section GG评分≤51,敏感性/特异性平衡最高。结论:HDS、设施跌倒风险评估和GG部分评分充分且相似地识别了住院康复中混合诊断的患者的跌倒风险。与康复护理实践的临床相关性:康复护士有几种选择,包括HDS和GG部分,以确定最有可能摔倒的患者。
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
Rehabilitation Nursing
Rehabilitation Nursing 医学-护理
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
68
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Rehabilitation Nursing is a refereed, award-winning publication and is the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses. Its purpose is to provide rehabilitation professionals with high-quality articles with a primary focus on rehabilitation nursing. Topics range from administration and research to education and clinical topics, and nursing perspectives, with continuing education opportunities in every issue. Articles range from administration and research to education and clinical topics; nursing perspectives, resource reviews, and product information; and continuing education opportunities in every issue.
期刊最新文献
Implementing Remote Patient Monitoring of Physical Activity in Clinical Practice. The Role of Nursing Staff Regarding Goal Setting and Achieving in Geriatric Rehabilitation: A Focus Group Study. The Effect of Motivational Interview-Based Counseling in Individuals With Amputation: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Turkey. The Value of Connectedness. Efficacy of Rapid Rehabilitation Nursing in Postoperative Care in China: A Meta-Analysis.
×
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