Article

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 MEASURES: 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.
CI - (c) The Author(s) 2014.

Langue : ANGLAIS