住院成人患者依赖性和临床-社会脆弱性指数与跌倒风险的预测力:病例对照研究

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient Safety Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-13 DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001214
Marco Cioce, Simone Grassi, Ivan Borrelli, Vincenzo Maria Grassi, Renato Ghisellini, Carmen Nuzzo, Maurizio Zega, Patrizia Laurenti, Matteo Raponi, Riccardo Rossi, Stefania Boccia, Umberto Moscato, Antonio Oliva, Giuseppe Vetrugno
{"title":"住院成人患者依赖性和临床-社会脆弱性指数与跌倒风险的预测力:病例对照研究","authors":"Marco Cioce, Simone Grassi, Ivan Borrelli, Vincenzo Maria Grassi, Renato Ghisellini, Carmen Nuzzo, Maurizio Zega, Patrizia Laurenti, Matteo Raponi, Riccardo Rossi, Stefania Boccia, Umberto Moscato, Antonio Oliva, Giuseppe Vetrugno","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Accidental falls are among the leading hospitals' adverse events, with incidence ranging from 2 to 20 events per 1.000 days/patients. The objective of this study is to assess the relationship between in-hospital falls and the score of 3 DEPendence and Clinical-Social Fragility indexes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A monocentric case-control study was conducted by retrieving data of in-hospital patients from the electronic health records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant differences between the mean scores at the hospital admission and discharge were found. The BRASS scale mean (SD) values at the admission and at the discharge were also significantly higher in cases of in-hospital falls: at the admission 10.2 (±7.7) in cases versus 7.0 (±8.0) in controls ( P = 0.003); at the discharge 10.0 (±6.4) versus 6.7 (±7.5) ( P = 0.001). Barthel index mean (SD) scores also presented statistically significant differences: at the admission 60.3 (±40.6) in cases versus 76.0 (±34.8) in controls ( P = 0.003); at discharge 51.3 (±34.9) versus 73.3 (±35.2) ( P = 0.000).Odds ratios were as follows: for Barthel index 2.37 (95% CI, 1.28-4.39; P = 0.003); for Index of Caring Complexity 1.45 (95% CI, 0.72-2.91, P = 0. 255); for BRASS index 1.95 (95% CI, 1.03-3.70, P = 0.026). With BRASS index, the area under the curve was 0.667 (95% CI, 0.595-0.740), thus indicating a moderate predictive power of the scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of only Conley scale-despite its sensitivity and specificity-is not enough to fully address this need because of the multiple and heterogeneous factors that predispose to in-hospital falls. Therefore, the combination of multiple tools should be recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":" ","pages":"240-246"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictive Power of Dependence and Clinical-Social Fragility Index and Risk of Fall in Hospitalized Adult Patients: A Case-Control Study.\",\"authors\":\"Marco Cioce, Simone Grassi, Ivan Borrelli, Vincenzo Maria Grassi, Renato Ghisellini, Carmen Nuzzo, Maurizio Zega, Patrizia Laurenti, Matteo Raponi, Riccardo Rossi, Stefania Boccia, Umberto Moscato, Antonio Oliva, Giuseppe Vetrugno\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Accidental falls are among the leading hospitals' adverse events, with incidence ranging from 2 to 20 events per 1.000 days/patients. The objective of this study is to assess the relationship between in-hospital falls and the score of 3 DEPendence and Clinical-Social Fragility indexes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A monocentric case-control study was conducted by retrieving data of in-hospital patients from the electronic health records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant differences between the mean scores at the hospital admission and discharge were found. The BRASS scale mean (SD) values at the admission and at the discharge were also significantly higher in cases of in-hospital falls: at the admission 10.2 (±7.7) in cases versus 7.0 (±8.0) in controls ( P = 0.003); at the discharge 10.0 (±6.4) versus 6.7 (±7.5) ( P = 0.001). Barthel index mean (SD) scores also presented statistically significant differences: at the admission 60.3 (±40.6) in cases versus 76.0 (±34.8) in controls ( P = 0.003); at discharge 51.3 (±34.9) versus 73.3 (±35.2) ( P = 0.000).Odds ratios were as follows: for Barthel index 2.37 (95% CI, 1.28-4.39; P = 0.003); for Index of Caring Complexity 1.45 (95% CI, 0.72-2.91, P = 0. 255); for BRASS index 1.95 (95% CI, 1.03-3.70, P = 0.026). With BRASS index, the area under the curve was 0.667 (95% CI, 0.595-0.740), thus indicating a moderate predictive power of the scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of only Conley scale-despite its sensitivity and specificity-is not enough to fully address this need because of the multiple and heterogeneous factors that predispose to in-hospital falls. Therefore, the combination of multiple tools should be recommended.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48901,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient Safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"240-246\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001214\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001214","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:意外跌倒是医院的主要不良事件之一,发生率为每 1.000 天/患者 2 到 20 起。本研究的目的是评估院内跌倒与 3 项 DEPendence 和 Clinical-Social Fragility 指数得分之间的关系:方法:从电子健康记录中检索住院患者的数据,进行单中心病例对照研究:入院和出院时的平均得分存在显著差异。入院和出院时的BRASS量表平均值(标清)也明显高于院内跌倒病例:入院时病例为10.2(±7.7)分,对照组为7.0(±8.0)分(P = 0.003);出院时病例为10.0(±6.4)分,对照组为6.7(±7.5)分(P = 0.001)。Barthel 指数平均值(标清)得分也有显著的统计学差异:入院时病例为 60.3(±40.6)分,对照组为 76.0(±34.8)分(P = 0.003);出院时病例为 51.3(±34.9)分,对照组为 73.3(±35.2)分(P = 0.000)。比值比如下:巴特尔指数为 2.37 (95% CI, 1.28-4.39; P = 0.003);护理复杂性指数为 1.45 (95% CI, 0.72-2.91, P = 0. 255);BRASS 指数为 1.95 (95% CI, 1.03-3.70, P = 0.026)。BRASS指数的曲线下面积为0.667(95% CI,0.595-0.740),因此表明该量表的预测能力适中:结论:尽管康利量表具有灵敏度和特异性,但由于导致院内跌倒的因素多种多样,仅使用康利量表不足以完全满足这一需求。因此,建议结合使用多种工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Predictive Power of Dependence and Clinical-Social Fragility Index and Risk of Fall in Hospitalized Adult Patients: A Case-Control Study.

Objectives: Accidental falls are among the leading hospitals' adverse events, with incidence ranging from 2 to 20 events per 1.000 days/patients. The objective of this study is to assess the relationship between in-hospital falls and the score of 3 DEPendence and Clinical-Social Fragility indexes.

Methods: A monocentric case-control study was conducted by retrieving data of in-hospital patients from the electronic health records.

Results: Significant differences between the mean scores at the hospital admission and discharge were found. The BRASS scale mean (SD) values at the admission and at the discharge were also significantly higher in cases of in-hospital falls: at the admission 10.2 (±7.7) in cases versus 7.0 (±8.0) in controls ( P = 0.003); at the discharge 10.0 (±6.4) versus 6.7 (±7.5) ( P = 0.001). Barthel index mean (SD) scores also presented statistically significant differences: at the admission 60.3 (±40.6) in cases versus 76.0 (±34.8) in controls ( P = 0.003); at discharge 51.3 (±34.9) versus 73.3 (±35.2) ( P = 0.000).Odds ratios were as follows: for Barthel index 2.37 (95% CI, 1.28-4.39; P = 0.003); for Index of Caring Complexity 1.45 (95% CI, 0.72-2.91, P = 0. 255); for BRASS index 1.95 (95% CI, 1.03-3.70, P = 0.026). With BRASS index, the area under the curve was 0.667 (95% CI, 0.595-0.740), thus indicating a moderate predictive power of the scale.

Conclusions: The use of only Conley scale-despite its sensitivity and specificity-is not enough to fully address this need because of the multiple and heterogeneous factors that predispose to in-hospital falls. Therefore, the combination of multiple tools should be recommended.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With COVID-19 Treated in Mayo Clinic's Advanced Care at Home Program. Exploring the Relationship Between Hospital Patient Safety Culture and Performance on Measures of Hospital-Acquired Conditions. Patient Safety and Perception of Quality in University Dental Hospitals: A French National Survey. Rethinking Surgical Safety: Investigating the Impact of Gamified Training on Severe Flow Disruptions in Surgery. Second Victims in Mental Health Care.
×
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