Article

How to try this: predicting patient falls. Using the Hendrich II Fall Risk Model in clinical practice.

Ascension Health, St Louis, USA.
The American Journal of Nursing (Impact Factor: 1.32). 12/2007; 107(11):50-8; quiz 58-9.
Source: PubMed
5 Followers
 · 
346 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the predictive value of two instruments (the Morse Fall Scale (MFS) and the Heindrich II Fall Risk Model (HFRM)] in a Middle Eastern country (Lebanon) and to evaluate the factors that are related to falls. A prospective observational cross-sectional design was used. Falls and fall-related injuries in the acute care settings contribute a substantial health and economic burden on patients and organisations. Preventing falls is a priority for most healthcare organisations. While the risk of falling cannot be eliminated, it can be significantly reduced through accurate assessment of patients' risk of falling. Data from 1815 inpatients at the American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC) in Lebanon were evaluated using two instruments to predict falls: the MFS and the HFRM. The incidence of falls was 2·7% in one year. The results indicate that while the instruments were significantly correlated, the HFRM was more sensitive in predicting falls than the MFS. The internal consistency of both scales was moderate, but inter-rater reliability was high. Patients using antiepileptic drugs and assistance devises had higher odds of falling. Although both instruments were easy to use in a Middle Eastern country, the HFRM rather than the MFS is recommended for inpatients in an acute care setting as it had higher sensitivity and specificity. It is recommended that while the HFRM had adequate sensitivity, it is not seamless, and as such, nurses should not rely entirely on it. Rather, nurses should use their expert clinical judgement, their ethical obligations and cultural considerations to implement a safer environment of care for the patient.
    Journal of Clinical Nursing 10/2013; DOI:10.1111/jocn.12278 · 1.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Falls are the most common cause of injuries and hospital admissions in the elderly. The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare has created a list of drugs considered to increase the fall risk (FRIDs) and drugs that might cause/worsen orthostatism (ODs). This cross-sectional study was aimed to assess FRIDs and their correlation with falls in a sample of 369 community-dwelling and nursing home patients aged >=75 years and who were using a multi-dose drug dispensing system. Data were collected from the patients' electronic medication lists. Retrospective data on reported falls during the previous three months and severe falls during the previous 12 months were collected. Primary outcome measures were incidence of falls as well as numbers of FRIDs and ODs in fallers and non-fallers. The studied sample had a high incidence of both reported falls (29%) and severe falls (17%). Patients were dispensed a mean of 2.2 (SD 1.5) FRIDs and 2.0 (SD 1.6) ODs. Fallers used on average more FRIDs. Severe falls were more common in nursing homes patients. More women than men experienced severe falls. There were positive associations between number of FRIDs and the total number of drugs (p < 0.01), severe falls (p < 0.01) and female sex (p = 0.03). There were also associations between number of ODs and both total number of drugs (p < 0.01) and being community dwelling (p = 0.02). No association was found between number of ODs and severe falls. Antidepressants and anxiolytics were the most frequently dispensed FRIDs. Fallers had a higher number of FRIDs. Numbers of FRIDs and ODs were correlated with the total number of drugs dispensed. Interventions to reduce falls in the elderly by focusing on reducing the total number of drugs and withdrawal of psychotropic medications might improve the quality and safety of drug treatment in primary care.
    BMC Geriatrics 03/2014; 14(1):40. DOI:10.1186/1471-2318-14-40 · 2.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To evaluate relative accuracy of a newly developed Stroke Assessment of Fall Risk (SAFR) for classifying fallers and non-fallers, compared with a health system fall risk screening tool, the Fall Harm Risk Screen. Design and setting: Prospective quality improvement study conducted at an inpatient stroke rehabilitation unit at a large urban university hospital. Participants: Patients admitted for inpatient stroke rehabilitation (N = 419) with imaging or clinical evidence of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2010. Interventions: Not applicable. Main outcome measure(s): Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve for Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves of both scales' classifications, based on fall risk score completed upon admission to inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Results: A total of 68 (16%) participants fell at least once. The SAFR was significantly more accurate than the Fall Harm Risk Screen (p < 0.001), with area under the curve of 0.73, positive predictive value of 0.29, and negative predictive value of 0.94. For the Fall Harm Risk Screen, area under the curve was 0.56, positive predictive value was 0.19, and negative predictive value was 0.86. Sensitivity and specificity of the SAFR (0.78 and 0.63, respectively) was higher than the Fall Harm Risk Screen (0.57 and 0.48, respectively). Conclusions: An evidence-derived, population-specific fall risk assessment may more accurately predict fallers than a general fall risk screen for stroke rehabilitation patients. While the SAFR improves upon the accuracy of a general assessment tool, additional refinement may be warranted.
    Clinical Rehabilitation 05/2014; 28(12). DOI:10.1177/0269215514534276 · 2.18 Impact Factor