We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
Comparison of fall prediction by the Hessisch Oldendorf Fall Risk Scale and the Fall Risk Scale by Huhn in neurological rehabilitation: an observational study.
Clinical Rehabilitation 2018 May
OBJECTIVE: To calculate scale performance of the newly developed Hessisch Oldendorf Fall Risk Scale (HOSS) for classifying fallers and non-fallers in comparison with the Risk of Falling Scale by Huhn (FSH), a frequently used assessment tool.
DESIGN: A prospective observational trail was conducted.
SETTING: The study was performed in a large specialized neurological rehabilitation facility.
SUBJECTS: The study population ( n = 690) included neurological and neurosurgery patients during neurological rehabilitation with varying levels of disability. Around the half of the study patients were independent and dependent in the activities of daily living (ADL), respectively.
INTERVENTIONS: Fall risk of each patient was assessed by HOSS and FSH within the first seven days after admission.
MAIN MEASURES: Event of fall during rehabilitation was compared with HOSS and FSH scores as well as the according fall risk. Scale performance including sensitivity and specificity was calculated for both scales.
RESULTS: A total of 107 (15.5%) patients experienced at least one fall. In general, fallers were characterized by an older age, a prolonged length of stay, and a lower Barthel Index (higher dependence in the ADL) on admission than non-fallers. The verification of fall prediction for both scales showed a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 64% for the HOSS scale, and a sensitivity of 98% with a specificity of 12% for the FSH scale, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The HOSS shows an adequate sensitivity, a higher specificity and therefore a better scale performance than the FSH. Thus, the HOSS might be superior to existing assessments.
DESIGN: A prospective observational trail was conducted.
SETTING: The study was performed in a large specialized neurological rehabilitation facility.
SUBJECTS: The study population ( n = 690) included neurological and neurosurgery patients during neurological rehabilitation with varying levels of disability. Around the half of the study patients were independent and dependent in the activities of daily living (ADL), respectively.
INTERVENTIONS: Fall risk of each patient was assessed by HOSS and FSH within the first seven days after admission.
MAIN MEASURES: Event of fall during rehabilitation was compared with HOSS and FSH scores as well as the according fall risk. Scale performance including sensitivity and specificity was calculated for both scales.
RESULTS: A total of 107 (15.5%) patients experienced at least one fall. In general, fallers were characterized by an older age, a prolonged length of stay, and a lower Barthel Index (higher dependence in the ADL) on admission than non-fallers. The verification of fall prediction for both scales showed a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 64% for the HOSS scale, and a sensitivity of 98% with a specificity of 12% for the FSH scale, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The HOSS shows an adequate sensitivity, a higher specificity and therefore a better scale performance than the FSH. Thus, the HOSS might be superior to existing assessments.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app