{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05539971949509116, 'fraction_numerical': 0.06521739130434782, 'mean_word_length': 4.618110236220472, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Fall risk-assessment tools compared with clinical judgment: an evaluation in a rehabilitation ward.

OBJECTIVES
to compare the use of two falls risk-identification tools (Downton and STRATIFY) with clinical judgment (based upon the observation of wandering behaviour) in predicting falls of medically stable patients in a rehabilitation ward for older people.


METHODS
in a prospective observational study, with blinded end-point evaluation, 200 patients admitted to a geriatric rehabilitation hospital had a STRATIFY and Downton Fall Risk assessment and were observed for wandering behaviour.


RESULTS
wandering had a predictive accuracy of 78%. A total of 157/200 were identified correctly compared to 100/200 using the Downton score (P < 0.0001 95%, CI 0.18-0.42), or 93/200 using STRATIFY (P < 0.0001; 95% CI 0.15-0.37). The Downton and STRATIFY tools demonstrated predictive accuracies of 50% and 46.5%, respectively, with no statistical significance between the two (P = 0.55; 95% CI 0.77-1.71). Sensitivity for predicting falls using wandering was 43.1% (22/51). This was significantly worse than Downton 92.2% (47/51: P < 0.001) and STRATIFY 82.3% (42/51: P < 0.001).


CONCLUSIONS
this study showed that clinical observation had a higher accuracy than two used falls risk-assessment tools. However it was significantly less sensitive implying that fewer patients who fell were correctly identified as being at risk.