↓ Skip to main content

Fall prevention: is the STRATIFY tool the right instrument in Italian Hospital inpatient? A retrospective observational study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Fall prevention: is the STRATIFY tool the right instrument in Italian Hospital inpatient? A retrospective observational study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2583-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Greta Castellini, Antonia Demarchi, Monica Lanzoni, Silvana Castaldi

Abstract

Although several risk assessment tools are in use, uncertainties on their accuracy in detecting fall risk already exist. Choosing the most accurate tool for hospital inpatient is still a challenge for the organizations. We aimed to retrospectively assess the appropriateness of a fall risk prevention program with the STRATIFY assessment tool in detecting acute-care inpatient fall risk. Number of falls and near falls, occurred from January 2014 to March 2015, was collected through the incident reporting web-system implemented in the hospital's intranet. We reported whether the fall risk was assessed with the STRATIFY assessment tool and, if so, which was the judgement. Primary outcome was the proportion of inpatients identified as high risk of fall among inpatients who fell (True Positive Rate), and the proportion of inpatients identified as low-risk that experienced a fall howsoever (False Negative Rate). Characteristics of population and fall events were described among subgroups of low risk and high risk inpatients. We collected 365 incident reports from 40 hospital units, 349 (95.6%) were real falls and 16 (4.4%) were near falls. The fall risk assessment score at patient's admission had been reported in 289 (79%) of the overall incident reports. Thus, 74 (20.3%) fallers were actually not assessed with the STRATIFY, even though the majority of them presented risk recommended to be assessed. The True Positive Rate was 35.6% (n = 101, 95% CI 30% - 41.1%). The False Negative Rate was 64.4% (n = 183, 95% CI 58.9%-70%) of fallers, nevertheless they incurred in a fall. The STRATIFY mean score was 1.3 ± 1.4; the median was 1 (IQQ 0-2). The prevention program using only the STRATIFY tool was found to be not adequate to screen our inpatients population. The incorrect identification of patients' needs leads to allocate resources to erroneous priorities and to untargeted interventions, decreasing healthcare performance and quality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 19%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Other 9 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 5%
Researcher 6 4%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 50 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 41 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 12%
Unspecified 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 54 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 May 2020.
All research outputs
#6,488,834
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,145
of 7,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,835
of 316,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#62
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.