Age and Ageing Advance Access originally published online on December 20, 2005
Age and Ageing 2006 35(2):138-143; doi:10.1093/ageing/afj027
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Use of the ‘STRATIFY’ falls risk assessment in patients recovering from acute stroke
On behalf of Stroke United Network Yorkshire (SUNY), Academic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, University of Leeds
Address correspondence to: Jane Smith, Academic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, St Luke’s Hospital, Bradford BD5 0NA, UK. Tel: (+44) 01274 365066. Email: stroke.research{at}bradfordhospitals.nhs.uk
Objectives: to investigate the predictive validity and reliability of the STRATIFY falls risk assessment tool as applied to patients recovering from acute stroke.
Design: prospective cohort study.
Setting: six stroke rehabilitation units in the North of England.
Subjects: all patients with a diagnosis of acute stroke admitted to the participating stroke units during a 6-month study period.
Assessment: on admission, falls risk (STRATIFY), disability (Barthel index), mobility (Rivermead mobility index), cognitive impairment (abbreviated mental test score) and visual neglect (Albert’s test) were assessed. Then, STRATIFY was completed weekly and within 48 h of anticipated discharge. Consenting patients were contacted at 3 months after discharge to determine falls.
Outcome measures: occurrence of a fall within 28 days of the baseline STRATIFY (in-patient study), falls in the first 3 months after discharge (post-discharge study) and falls during stroke unit stay (reliability study).
Results: from 387 patients admitted to the participating units during the study period, 225 contributed to the 28 day in-patient study, and 234 were followed up at 3 months after discharge. STRATIFY performed poorly in predicting falls in the first 28 days (sensitivity 11.3% and specificity 89.5%) and after discharge (sensitivity 16.3% and specificity 86.4%). Agreement was ‘fair’ between baseline and discharge scores (kappa = 0.263) and ‘good’ between the pre-hospital discharge score and that obtained in the week preceding discharge (kappa = 0.639).
Conclusion: STRATIFY performed poorly as a predictor of falls in a heterogeneous population of stroke patients. There is a need for a disease-specific rather than a generic falls risk assessment tool.
Keywords: cerebrovascular disorders, rehabilitation, accidental falls, risk assessment, elderly
Received July 22, 2005; accepted in revised form November 17, 2005.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Vassallo, L. Poynter, J. C. Sharma, J. Kwan, and S. C. Allen Fall risk-assessment tools compared with clinical judgment: an evaluation in a rehabilitation ward Age Ageing, May 1, 2008; 37(3): 277 - 281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Ashburn, D. Hyndman, R. Pickering, L. Yardley, and S. Harris Predicting people with stroke at risk of falls Age Ageing, May 1, 2008; 37(3): 270 - 276. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. P. Haines, K. Hill, W. Walsh, and R. Osborne Design-Related Bias in Hospital Fall Risk Screening Tool Predictive Accuracy Evaluations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., June 1, 2007; 62(6): 664 - 672. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Seneviratne The STRATIFY falls risk assessment tool was not useful in predicting falls in patients with acute stroke Evid. Based Nurs., July 1, 2006; 9(3): 91 - 91. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|