Cargando…

Fall prevention: is the STRATIFY tool the right instrument in Italian Hospital inpatient? A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND: Although several risk assessment tools are in use, uncertainties on their accuracy in detecting fall risk already exist. Choosing the most accurate tool for hospital inpatient is still a challenge for the organizations. We aimed to retrospectively assess the appropriateness of a fall ris...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Castellini, Greta, Demarchi, Antonia, Lanzoni, Monica, Castaldi, Silvana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5602910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28915808
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2583-7
_version_ 1783264643452502016
author Castellini, Greta
Demarchi, Antonia
Lanzoni, Monica
Castaldi, Silvana
author_facet Castellini, Greta
Demarchi, Antonia
Lanzoni, Monica
Castaldi, Silvana
author_sort Castellini, Greta
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although several risk assessment tools are in use, uncertainties on their accuracy in detecting fall risk already exist. Choosing the most accurate tool for hospital inpatient is still a challenge for the organizations. We aimed to retrospectively assess the appropriateness of a fall risk prevention program with the STRATIFY assessment tool in detecting acute-care inpatient fall risk. METHODS: Number of falls and near falls, occurred from January 2014 to March 2015, was collected through the incident reporting web-system implemented in the hospital’s intranet. We reported whether the fall risk was assessed with the STRATIFY assessment tool and, if so, which was the judgement. Primary outcome was the proportion of inpatients identified as high risk of fall among inpatients who fell (True Positive Rate), and the proportion of inpatients identified as low-risk that experienced a fall howsoever (False Negative Rate). Characteristics of population and fall events were described among subgroups of low risk and high risk inpatients. RESULTS: We collected 365 incident reports from 40 hospital units, 349 (95.6%) were real falls and 16 (4.4%) were near falls. The fall risk assessment score at patient’s admission had been reported in 289 (79%) of the overall incident reports. Thus, 74 (20.3%) fallers were actually not assessed with the STRATIFY, even though the majority of them presented risk recommended to be assessed. The True Positive Rate was 35.6% (n = 101, 95% CI 30% - 41.1%). The False Negative Rate was 64.4% (n = 183, 95% CI 58.9%–70%) of fallers, nevertheless they incurred in a fall. The STRATIFY mean score was 1.3 ± 1.4; the median was 1 (IQQ 0–2). CONCLUSIONS: The prevention program using only the STRATIFY tool was found to be not adequate to screen our inpatients population. The incorrect identification of patients’ needs leads to allocate resources to erroneous priorities and to untargeted interventions, decreasing healthcare performance and quality.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5602910
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56029102017-09-20 Fall prevention: is the STRATIFY tool the right instrument in Italian Hospital inpatient? A retrospective observational study Castellini, Greta Demarchi, Antonia Lanzoni, Monica Castaldi, Silvana BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Although several risk assessment tools are in use, uncertainties on their accuracy in detecting fall risk already exist. Choosing the most accurate tool for hospital inpatient is still a challenge for the organizations. We aimed to retrospectively assess the appropriateness of a fall risk prevention program with the STRATIFY assessment tool in detecting acute-care inpatient fall risk. METHODS: Number of falls and near falls, occurred from January 2014 to March 2015, was collected through the incident reporting web-system implemented in the hospital’s intranet. We reported whether the fall risk was assessed with the STRATIFY assessment tool and, if so, which was the judgement. Primary outcome was the proportion of inpatients identified as high risk of fall among inpatients who fell (True Positive Rate), and the proportion of inpatients identified as low-risk that experienced a fall howsoever (False Negative Rate). Characteristics of population and fall events were described among subgroups of low risk and high risk inpatients. RESULTS: We collected 365 incident reports from 40 hospital units, 349 (95.6%) were real falls and 16 (4.4%) were near falls. The fall risk assessment score at patient’s admission had been reported in 289 (79%) of the overall incident reports. Thus, 74 (20.3%) fallers were actually not assessed with the STRATIFY, even though the majority of them presented risk recommended to be assessed. The True Positive Rate was 35.6% (n = 101, 95% CI 30% - 41.1%). The False Negative Rate was 64.4% (n = 183, 95% CI 58.9%–70%) of fallers, nevertheless they incurred in a fall. The STRATIFY mean score was 1.3 ± 1.4; the median was 1 (IQQ 0–2). CONCLUSIONS: The prevention program using only the STRATIFY tool was found to be not adequate to screen our inpatients population. The incorrect identification of patients’ needs leads to allocate resources to erroneous priorities and to untargeted interventions, decreasing healthcare performance and quality. BioMed Central 2017-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5602910/ /pubmed/28915808 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2583-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Castellini, Greta
Demarchi, Antonia
Lanzoni, Monica
Castaldi, Silvana
Fall prevention: is the STRATIFY tool the right instrument in Italian Hospital inpatient? A retrospective observational study
title Fall prevention: is the STRATIFY tool the right instrument in Italian Hospital inpatient? A retrospective observational study
title_full Fall prevention: is the STRATIFY tool the right instrument in Italian Hospital inpatient? A retrospective observational study
title_fullStr Fall prevention: is the STRATIFY tool the right instrument in Italian Hospital inpatient? A retrospective observational study
title_full_unstemmed Fall prevention: is the STRATIFY tool the right instrument in Italian Hospital inpatient? A retrospective observational study
title_short Fall prevention: is the STRATIFY tool the right instrument in Italian Hospital inpatient? A retrospective observational study
title_sort fall prevention: is the stratify tool the right instrument in italian hospital inpatient? a retrospective observational study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5602910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28915808
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2583-7
work_keys_str_mv AT castellinigreta fallpreventionisthestratifytooltherightinstrumentinitalianhospitalinpatientaretrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT demarchiantonia fallpreventionisthestratifytooltherightinstrumentinitalianhospitalinpatientaretrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT lanzonimonica fallpreventionisthestratifytooltherightinstrumentinitalianhospitalinpatientaretrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT castaldisilvana fallpreventionisthestratifytooltherightinstrumentinitalianhospitalinpatientaretrospectiveobservationalstudy