• Mark P Ortenzio, Garrett V Brittain, Timothy C Frommeyer, David P Muwanga, Adrienne Stolfi, Priti P Parikh, and Patricia A O'Malley.
• Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA. Electronic address: ortenzio.2@wright.edu.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2024 Feb 1; 76: 939893-98.

IntroductionFalls that occur within a hospital setting are difficult to predict, however, are preventable adverse events with the potential to negatively impact patient care. Falls have the potential to cause serious or fatal injuries and may increase patient morbidity. Many hospitals utilize fall "predictor tools" to categorize a patient's fall risk, however, these tools are primarily studied within in-patient units. The emergency department (ED) presents a unique environment with a distinct patient population and demographic. The Memorial Emergency Department Fall Risk Assessment Tool (MEDFRAT) has shown to be effective with predicting a patient's fall risk in the ED. This IRB-approved study aims to assess the predictive validity of the MEDFRAT by evaluating the sensitivity and specificity for predicting a patient's fall risk in an emergency department at a level 1 trauma center.MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using an electronic medical record (EMR) for patients who met study inclusion criteria at a level 1 trauma center ED. Extracted data includes MEDFRAT components, demographic information, and data from the Moving Safely Risk Assessment (MSRA) Tool, our institution's current fall assessment tool. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to determine the best cutoff for identifying any fall risk. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and negative LR (LR-), with 95% CIs were then calculated for the cutoff value determined from the ROC curve. To compare overall tool performance, the areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were determined and compared with a z-test.ResultsThe MEDFRAT had a significantly higher sensitivity compared to the MSRA (83.1% vs. 66.1%, p = 0.002), while the MSRA had a significantly higher specificity (84.5% vs. 69.0%, p = 0.012). For identifying any level of fall risk, ROC curve analysis showed that the cutoff providing the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity for the MEDFRAT was a score of ≥1. Additionally, area under the curve was determined for the MEDFRAT and MSRA (0.817 vs. 0.737).ConclusionThis study confirms the validity of the MEDFRAT as an acceptable tool to predict in-hospital falls in a level 1 trauma center ED. Accurate identification of patients at a high risk of falling is critical for decreasing healthcare costs and improving health outcomes and patient safety.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

12 keywords...

hide…