Wilson Sims跌倒风险评估工具、临床判断和Morse跌倒量表在精神病住院患者跌倒风险评估中的敏感性和特异性比较

R. Jamaluddin, Ooi Yit Tyse, Aimi Izwani Mohd Nazli, Munirah Syakirah Ab Rahman, Sim Ru Min
{"title":"Wilson Sims跌倒风险评估工具、临床判断和Morse跌倒量表在精神病住院患者跌倒风险评估中的敏感性和特异性比较","authors":"R. Jamaluddin, Ooi Yit Tyse, Aimi Izwani Mohd Nazli, Munirah Syakirah Ab Rahman, Sim Ru Min","doi":"10.20471/dec.2022.58.02.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Effective fall risk assessment tool is important for preventive measures to be instituted among psychiatric inpatients. Our study aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of Wilson-Sims Fall Risk Assessment Tool (WSFRAT), clinical judgment and Morse Fall Scale (MFS) in the assessment of the risk of fall among psychiatric inpatients. All psychiatric inpatients who were admitted to psychiatric ward of Hospital Tuanku Fauziah, Malaysia from April 1st, 2019, till December 31st, 2020 were assessed for their risk of fall using WSFRAT, clinical judgment and MFS. The frequency and characteristics of actual fall event during period of hospitalization was documented. The study included a total of 400 psychiatric inpatients. Clinical judgment stratified 17 patients as high risk of fall (Mean age: 50.9 ± 12.13 years old, male predominance at 76.5 % and otherwise physically healthy), among which, five actually fell. Among these, four were considered as high risk by WSFRAT and two by MFS. The WSFRAT demonstrated higher sensitivity of fall detection as compared to MFS (60 % vs. 40 %), while the sensitivity of clinical judgment alone without specific fall risks tools was 80 % and a specificity of 96.7 %. Clinical judgement is derived from a comprehensive psychiatric assessment. The value of any objective assessment tool proved to be superior when an element of clinical judgement is concurrently added.","PeriodicalId":8294,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Psychiatry Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Sensitivity and Specificity of Wilson-Sims Fall Risk Assessment Tool, Clinical Judgment and Morse Fall Scale in the Assessment of Fall Risk among Psychiatric Inpatients\",\"authors\":\"R. Jamaluddin, Ooi Yit Tyse, Aimi Izwani Mohd Nazli, Munirah Syakirah Ab Rahman, Sim Ru Min\",\"doi\":\"10.20471/dec.2022.58.02.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Effective fall risk assessment tool is important for preventive measures to be instituted among psychiatric inpatients. Our study aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of Wilson-Sims Fall Risk Assessment Tool (WSFRAT), clinical judgment and Morse Fall Scale (MFS) in the assessment of the risk of fall among psychiatric inpatients. All psychiatric inpatients who were admitted to psychiatric ward of Hospital Tuanku Fauziah, Malaysia from April 1st, 2019, till December 31st, 2020 were assessed for their risk of fall using WSFRAT, clinical judgment and MFS. The frequency and characteristics of actual fall event during period of hospitalization was documented. The study included a total of 400 psychiatric inpatients. Clinical judgment stratified 17 patients as high risk of fall (Mean age: 50.9 ± 12.13 years old, male predominance at 76.5 % and otherwise physically healthy), among which, five actually fell. Among these, four were considered as high risk by WSFRAT and two by MFS. The WSFRAT demonstrated higher sensitivity of fall detection as compared to MFS (60 % vs. 40 %), while the sensitivity of clinical judgment alone without specific fall risks tools was 80 % and a specificity of 96.7 %. Clinical judgement is derived from a comprehensive psychiatric assessment. The value of any objective assessment tool proved to be superior when an element of clinical judgement is concurrently added.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Psychiatry Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Psychiatry Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20471/dec.2022.58.02.11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Psychiatry Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20471/dec.2022.58.02.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有效的跌倒风险评估工具对制定精神科住院患者的预防措施具有重要意义。本研究旨在比较Wilson-Sims跌倒风险评估工具(WSFRAT)、临床判断和Morse跌倒量表(MFS)评估精神科住院患者跌倒风险的敏感性和特异性。采用WSFRAT、临床判断和MFS对2019年4月1日至2020年12月31日马来西亚Tuanku Fauziah医院精神科住院患者的跌倒风险进行评估。记录住院期间实际跌倒事件的频率和特征。该研究共包括400名精神病住院患者。临床判定17例患者为跌倒高危人群(平均年龄:50.9±12.13岁,男性占76.5%,其他身体健康),其中5例患者实际跌倒。其中4例被WSFRAT评为高风险,2例被MFS评为高风险。与MFS相比,WSFRAT显示出更高的跌倒检测灵敏度(60%对40%),而没有特定跌倒风险工具的单独临床判断的敏感性为80%,特异性为96.7%。临床判断来源于全面的精神病学评估。任何客观评估工具的价值被证明是优越的,当一个元素的临床判断同时加入。
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
Comparing the Sensitivity and Specificity of Wilson-Sims Fall Risk Assessment Tool, Clinical Judgment and Morse Fall Scale in the Assessment of Fall Risk among Psychiatric Inpatients
Effective fall risk assessment tool is important for preventive measures to be instituted among psychiatric inpatients. Our study aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of Wilson-Sims Fall Risk Assessment Tool (WSFRAT), clinical judgment and Morse Fall Scale (MFS) in the assessment of the risk of fall among psychiatric inpatients. All psychiatric inpatients who were admitted to psychiatric ward of Hospital Tuanku Fauziah, Malaysia from April 1st, 2019, till December 31st, 2020 were assessed for their risk of fall using WSFRAT, clinical judgment and MFS. The frequency and characteristics of actual fall event during period of hospitalization was documented. The study included a total of 400 psychiatric inpatients. Clinical judgment stratified 17 patients as high risk of fall (Mean age: 50.9 ± 12.13 years old, male predominance at 76.5 % and otherwise physically healthy), among which, five actually fell. Among these, four were considered as high risk by WSFRAT and two by MFS. The WSFRAT demonstrated higher sensitivity of fall detection as compared to MFS (60 % vs. 40 %), while the sensitivity of clinical judgment alone without specific fall risks tools was 80 % and a specificity of 96.7 %. Clinical judgement is derived from a comprehensive psychiatric assessment. The value of any objective assessment tool proved to be superior when an element of clinical judgement is concurrently added.
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
Archives of Psychiatry Research
Archives of Psychiatry Research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊最新文献
Professionals’ Satisfaction with the Available Early Support Services, the Professional Role and the Support Provided to Children with Developmental Disabilities and Their Families ChatGPT and other Chatbots in Psychiatry Reliability of the Croatian Version of Motivation Scale for Free Time Meaning of Life in Secondary Abstainers from Alcohol (Abstain From Alcohol and Meaning of Life) Association between Brain-derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) Val66Met polymorphism and Clinical Outcomes as Measured with PANSS Scale in Patients With Schizophrenia in Two Psychiatric Centres in East Java – Indonesia
×
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