Validity and reliability of an android device for the assessment of fall risk in older adult inmates.
Enrique J Vera-Remartínez, Rocío Lázaro-Monge, Sofía V Casado-Hoces and 2 others
PMID 36464813WHAT IT FOUND
In 81 older inmates, FallSkip identified 60.7% of those who had fallen, compared with 21.4% by SPPB and 17.9% by TUG.
It does not show the device prevents future falls.
Key findings
01FallSkip detected 60.7% of participants who had fallen in the past year, compared with 21.4% for SPPB and 17.9% for TUG.
02FallSkip had overall test accuracy of 75.3%, compared with 65.4% for SPPB and 61.7% for TUG.
03FallSkip still missed 39.3% of participants who had fallen, compared with 78.6% for SPPB and 82.1% for TUG.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat 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.
What it does not show
The study used fall in the past year as the reference, not future falls, so it shows test detection, not fall prevention. Only 81 older inmates from four prisons were included, and wheelchair users and people with cognitive impairment on the Pfeiffer test were excluded, so results may not apply to all older adults. Four observers carried out the tests, but no interobserver reliability study was done. FallSkip categories were based on the manufacturer's database, and the study did not use the Physiological Profile Assessment, which the paper calls a reference or gold standard. The sample size calculation accepted wide accuracy of 13 to 14% because large samples were difficult in this prison population.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that FallSkip prevents falls or is ready for all older adults. It was a cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy test in 81 older inmates, using fall in the past year as the reference, and it still missed 39.3% of people who had fallen.