Citation

Harper KJ, Barton AD, Arendts G, Edwards DG, Petta AC, Celenza A. Emerg. Med. J. 2018; 35(1): 28-32.

Affiliation

Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, BMJ Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1136/emermed-2016-206233

PMID

28642373

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the Falls Risk for Older Persons-Community Setting Screening Tool (FROP Com Screen) with the Two-Item Screening Tool in older adults presenting to the ED.

METHODS: A prospective cohort study, comparing the efficacy of the two falls risk assessment tools by applying them simultaneously in a sample of hospital ED presentations.

RESULTS: Two hundred and one patients over 65 years old were recruited. Thirty-six per cent reported falls in the 6-month follow-up period. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.57 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.66) for the FROP Com Screen and 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.63) for the Two-Item Screening Tool. FROP Com Screen had a sensitivity of 39% (95% CI 0.27 to 0.51) and a specificity of 70% (95% CI 0.61 to 0.78), while the Two-Item Screening Tool had a sensitivity of 48% (95% CI 0.36 to 0.60) and a specificity of 57% (95% CI 0.47 to 0.66).

CONCLUSION: Both tools have limited predictive ability in the ED setting.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Language: en

Keywords

accidental falls; emergency department; frailty; geriatrics