Citation

Harrington L, Luquire R, Vish N, Winter M, Wilder C, Houser B, Pitcher E, Qin H. J. Nurs. Adm. 2010; 40(11): 483-488.

Affiliation

Baylor Health Care System, Dallas; Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital, Dallas; The Heart Hospital, Baylor Plano; Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas; Baylor Regional Medical Center at Grapevine; C Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano; and Baylor Institute for Research and Health Care Improvement, Dallas, Texas.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins)

DOI

10.1097/NNA.0b013e3181f88fbd

PMID

20978417

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:: The aim of the study was to identify which fall-risk tool is most accurate for assessing adults in the hospital setting. BACKGROUND:: Falls can have physical, emotional, social, and financial consequences. Risk assessment affords the first opportunity in prevention. METHODS:: To standardize the use of a fall-risk tool across the Baylor Health Care System, nurse executives undertook a meta-analysis of published research on fall-risk assessment tools used with adult inpatients. RESULTS:: Both random-effects and fixed-effects models showed that Morse Fall Scale had significantly higher sensitivity than St Thomas's Risk Assessment Tool (STRATIFY). Specificity of Morse Fall Scale was significantly lower than that of STRATIFY with the fixed-effects model, but the random-effects model showed the opposite. Morse Fall Scale had a significantly higher Youden index than STRATIFY with the fixed-effects model (P = .001), but the result from random-effects model indicated no significant difference (P = .117). The sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index fell within the 95% confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS:: Meta-analysis is a useful methodology for evaluating current evidence when variation exists in the literature.

Language: en