PTRNOtherNursing open2025

Assessment of Fall Risk in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Using the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths, and Injuries Algorithm.

Kyeongra Yang, Anita Van Wingerden, Marta Galagoza and 3 others

PMID 40913487

WHAT IT FOUND

STEADI screening found 59.6% of community older adults at fall risk, versus 39.5% by questionnaire alone.

Physical tests added mobility, balance, and strength concerns. Participants set goals for safety and exercise.

Key findings

01The STEADI algorithm identified 68 participants (59.6%) as at fall risk, while the fall risk questionnaire alone identified 45 participants (39.5%).

02Adding physical assessments to the questionnaire identified about 23 more participants as at risk.

03At-risk participants were older (76.3 vs 71.7 years) and performed worse on mobility, balance, and leg strength tests.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The sample was convenience and network sampled, so it may not represent all community older adults. Only 114 volunteers were screened, and the study was descriptive rather than a randomised trial. Screening was student-administered without direct supervision, which could affect measurement accuracy. The STEADI algorithm was modified by excluding eye exam, foot exam, and comorbidities. The article reports screening and objective-setting results, not follow-up fall outcomes. Each SMART objective addressed one prioritised problem, not a full care plan.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest and nothing to report. The study was approved as exempt quality improvement by the university institutional review board.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that STEADI screening or student-led assessment reduces falls. The study had no control group, no randomisation, and no follow-up outcomes; it only describes who was identified as at risk during screening.

Read it on PubMed →