Aims and Objectives:To evaluate the measured fall risk score that more accurately reflects the changeable conditions in acute care settings, and to efficiently evaluate the association between falls and fall risk score. Background:The Morse Fall Scale (MFS) is a well-known easy-to-use tool, while the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT) consists of items with high specificity. Evaluating suitable fall-risk assessment tools to measure these changeable conditions may contribute to preventing falls in acute care settings. Design:Retrospective case-control study using the STROBE checklist. Methods:In an acute care setting (708-bedded university hospital with a regional emergency medical centre), the non-fall group was adjusted to fall group using propensity score matching. According to the fall rate of 3-5%, non-fall groups for each tool were selected (1386 and 1947) from the before adjusted data, and the fall groups included 42 and 59. The applied covariates were individual characteristics that ordinarily changed such as age, gender, diagnostic department and hospitalisation period.The adjusted data were analysed using generalised estimating equations and mixed effect model. Results:After adjustment, the fall group measured using the JHFRAT had a significantly higher difference between the initial and re-measured total score than the non-fall group. The JHFRAT, especially with the re-measured score, had a higher AUC value for predicting falls than the MFS. MFS's sensitivity was 85.7%, and specificity was 58.8% at 50 points; for JHFRAT, these were 67.8% and 80.2% at 14 points, respectively. These cut-off points were used to evaluate validity during tool development and are commonly used as reference scores.Conclusions: JHFRAT more accurately reflects acute changeable conditions related to fall risk measurements after admission.Relevance to clinical practice: JHFRAT may be useful for effective fall prevention activities in acute care settings.

BackgroundThe number of revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in Asian countries is projected to increase with the rapid growth of primary TKA. We investigated the factors associated with the incidence of revision TKA using a nationally representative database.MethodsData collected by the Health Insurance Review Agency of Korea, from 260,068 TKA patients between 2007 and 2012, were used to estimate the incidence rate and cumulative incidence of revision TKA according to age, gender, and hospital TKA and prosthesis manufacturer volume. Age, hospital, and manufacturer volume were categorized into three groups. The incidence rates and cumulative incidences of revision TKA were computed by combining age and gender, and by combining hospital and prosthesis manufacturer volume.ResultsIncidence rates per 100,000 person-years were as follows: 1) by age: < 65 years, 447.2; 65–74 years, 363.7; ≥ 75 years, 270.9, 2) by gender: male, 537.8; female, 346.1; 3) by hospital volume (procedures/year): < 20, 536.9; 20–199, 432.3; ≥ 200, 300.1; and 4) by manufacturer volume (prostheses/year): < 1500, 772.3; 1500–3999, 453.9; ≥ 4000, 345.6. The revision TKA incidence rate in young males was significantly higher compared to that in elderly females. The difference in cumulative incidence, between hospitals with an annual volume of < 20 procedures and those with a volume of 20–199 procedures, was reduced for manufacturers with an annual volume of ≥ 4000. Similarly, the difference in cumulative incidence between manufacturers with an annual volume of <1500 prostheses and those with a volume of 1500–3999 prostheses was reduced in hospitals with an annual volume of ≥ 200.ConclusionRevision TKA incidence varied according to age, gender, and hospital and manufacturer volume. This data could inform clinical decisions and healthcare strategies.