ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2021
Testing of Reliability and Validity of the Peninsula Health Falls Risk Assessment Tool (PHFRAT) in Acute Care: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Peninsula Health Fall Risk Assessment Tool (PHFRAT) in acute care in various medical specialties. The assessment has not been previously studied in acute care.
methodsThe cross-sectional study was conducted in a large acute care hospital system. The retrospective medical data were used to explore the validity of the PHFRAT. The data consisted of all adult inpatients (≥ 18 age) evaluated by the PHFRAT during 2014-2016 (n = 22,700). The Poisson regression, logistic regression, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the ROC curve were evaluated. The data for the reliability study were collected in 2016 in twelve units by evaluating the patients (n = 359) twice using the PHFRAT. The prospective data were analyzed using Fleiss' Kappa, and the content validity index was also counted.
resultsIn the somatic data, the change in the risk level from low risk to high risk increases the probability of falls by a factor of 2.8 (p<0.01). When the cut-off point was 9, sensitivity and specificity were 72% and 59%, respectively, and the area under the ROC curve was 0.67 (p<0.01). Validity varied by medical specialties. In the validity analysis, it was not possible to calculate the statistical significance from the psychiatry data. The inter-rater reliability was 0.68 (p<0.01).
conclusionThis study shows that the PHFRAT proved to be moderately suitable for detecting the risk of falling for adult patients admitted to somatic units in acute care. The reliability of the PHFRAT was moderate. The results indicate the need to study the PHFRAT more broadly in psychiatric care as well as some specialties in somatic care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.