Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28915808›Full record

Observational studyBMC health services research2017

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

Greta Castellini, Antonia Demarchi, Monica Lanzoni, Silvana Castaldi

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Greta CastelliniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Via Pascal, 36, 20133, Milan, Italy. greta.castellini@unimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3345-8187
Antonia DemarchiFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Monica LanzoniFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Silvana CastaldiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Via Pascal, 36, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough 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.

methodsNumber 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.

resultsWe 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).

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHospitalizationHospitalsHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedProgram EvaluationRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsRisk ManagementAccidental fallsIncident reportingPatient safetyRisk assessment tools

Identifiers

PMID28915808
PMCPMC5602910
OpenAlexW2756053721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.