Cargando…

Practical and validated tool to assess falls risk in the primary care setting: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: Although several falls risk assessment tools are available, it is unclear which have been validated and which would be most suitable for primary care practices. This systematic review aims to identify the most suitable falls risk assessment tool for the primary care setting (ie, requires...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Meekes, Wytske MA, Korevaar, Joke C, Leemrijse, Chantal J, van de Goor, Ien AM
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8483054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34588228
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045431
_version_ 1784577038396424192
author Meekes, Wytske MA
Korevaar, Joke C
Leemrijse, Chantal J
van de Goor, Ien AM
author_facet Meekes, Wytske MA
Korevaar, Joke C
Leemrijse, Chantal J
van de Goor, Ien AM
author_sort Meekes, Wytske MA
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Although several falls risk assessment tools are available, it is unclear which have been validated and which would be most suitable for primary care practices. This systematic review aims to identify the most suitable falls risk assessment tool for the primary care setting (ie, requires limited time, no expensive equipment and no additional space) and that has good predictive performance in the assessment of falls risk among older people living independently. DESIGN: A systematic review based on prospective studies. METHODS: An extensive search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and PsycINFO. Tools were excluded if they required expensive and/or advanced software that is not usually available in primary care units and if they had not been validated in at least three different studies. Of 2492 articles published between January 2000 and July 2020, 27 were included. RESULTS: Six falls risk assessment tools were identified: Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, Gait Speed test, Berg Balance Scale, Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment, Functional Reach test and falls history. Most articles reported area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.5 to 0.7 for these tools. Sensitivity and specificity varied substantially across studies (eg, TUG, sensitivity:10%–83.3%, specificity:28.4%–96.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Given that none of the falls risk assessment tools had sufficient predictive performance (AUC <0.7), other ways of assessing high falls risk among independently living older people in primary care should be investigated. For now, the most suitable way to assess falls risk in the primary care setting appears to involve asking patients about their falls history. Compared with the other five tools, the falls history requires the least amount of time, no expensive equipment, no training and no spatial adjustments. The clinical judgement of healthcare professionals continues to be most important, as it enables the identification of high falls risk even for patients with no falls history. TRIAL REGISTRAION NUMBER: The Netherlands Trial Register, NL7917; Pre-results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8483054
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84830542021-10-08 Practical and validated tool to assess falls risk in the primary care setting: a systematic review Meekes, Wytske MA Korevaar, Joke C Leemrijse, Chantal J van de Goor, Ien AM BMJ Open General practice / Family practice OBJECTIVE: Although several falls risk assessment tools are available, it is unclear which have been validated and which would be most suitable for primary care practices. This systematic review aims to identify the most suitable falls risk assessment tool for the primary care setting (ie, requires limited time, no expensive equipment and no additional space) and that has good predictive performance in the assessment of falls risk among older people living independently. DESIGN: A systematic review based on prospective studies. METHODS: An extensive search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and PsycINFO. Tools were excluded if they required expensive and/or advanced software that is not usually available in primary care units and if they had not been validated in at least three different studies. Of 2492 articles published between January 2000 and July 2020, 27 were included. RESULTS: Six falls risk assessment tools were identified: Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, Gait Speed test, Berg Balance Scale, Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment, Functional Reach test and falls history. Most articles reported area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.5 to 0.7 for these tools. Sensitivity and specificity varied substantially across studies (eg, TUG, sensitivity:10%–83.3%, specificity:28.4%–96.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Given that none of the falls risk assessment tools had sufficient predictive performance (AUC <0.7), other ways of assessing high falls risk among independently living older people in primary care should be investigated. For now, the most suitable way to assess falls risk in the primary care setting appears to involve asking patients about their falls history. Compared with the other five tools, the falls history requires the least amount of time, no expensive equipment, no training and no spatial adjustments. The clinical judgement of healthcare professionals continues to be most important, as it enables the identification of high falls risk even for patients with no falls history. TRIAL REGISTRAION NUMBER: The Netherlands Trial Register, NL7917; Pre-results. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8483054/ /pubmed/34588228 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045431 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle General practice / Family practice
Meekes, Wytske MA
Korevaar, Joke C
Leemrijse, Chantal J
van de Goor, Ien AM
Practical and validated tool to assess falls risk in the primary care setting: a systematic review
title Practical and validated tool to assess falls risk in the primary care setting: a systematic review
title_full Practical and validated tool to assess falls risk in the primary care setting: a systematic review
title_fullStr Practical and validated tool to assess falls risk in the primary care setting: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Practical and validated tool to assess falls risk in the primary care setting: a systematic review
title_short Practical and validated tool to assess falls risk in the primary care setting: a systematic review
title_sort practical and validated tool to assess falls risk in the primary care setting: a systematic review
topic General practice / Family practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8483054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34588228
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045431
work_keys_str_mv AT meekeswytskema practicalandvalidatedtooltoassessfallsriskintheprimarycaresettingasystematicreview
AT korevaarjokec practicalandvalidatedtooltoassessfallsriskintheprimarycaresettingasystematicreview
AT leemrijsechantalj practicalandvalidatedtooltoassessfallsriskintheprimarycaresettingasystematicreview
AT vandegoorienam practicalandvalidatedtooltoassessfallsriskintheprimarycaresettingasystematicreview