Search

Objectives: Before being used in clinical practice, a prediction model should be tested in patients whose data were not used in model development. Previously, we developed the ADFICE_IT models for predicting any fall and recurrent falls, referred as Any_fall and Recur_fall. In this study, we externally validated the models and compared their clinical value to a practical screening strategy where patients are screened for falls history alone., Design: Retrospective, combined analysis of 2 prospective cohorts., Setting and Participants: Data were included of 1125 patients (aged ≥65 years) who visited the geriatrics department or the emergency department., Methods: We evaluated the models' discrimination using the C-statistic. Models were updated using logistic regression if calibration intercept or slope values deviated significantly from their ideal values. Decision curve analysis was applied to compare the models' clinical value (ie, net benefit) against that of falls history for different decision thresholds., Results: During the 1-year follow-up, 428 participants (42.7%) endured 1 or more falls, and 224 participants (23.1%) endured a recurrent fall (≥2 falls). C-statistic values were 0.66 (95% CI 0.63-0.69) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.65-0.72) for the Any_fall and Recur_fall models, respectively. Any_fall overestimated the fall risk and we therefore updated only its intercept whereas Recur_fall showed good calibration and required no update. Compared with falls history, Any_fall and Recur_fall showed greater net benefit for decision thresholds of 35% to 60% and 15% to 45%, respectively., Conclusions and Implications: The models performed similarly in this data set of geriatric outpatients as in the development sample. This suggests that fall-risk assessment tools that were developed in community-dwelling older adults may perform well in geriatric outpatients. We found that in geriatric outpatients the models have greater clinical value across a wide range of decision thresholds compared with screening for falls history alone., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Fall prevention is important in many hospitals. Current fall-risk-screening tools have limited predictive accuracy specifically for older inpatients. Their administration can be time-consuming. A reliable and easy-to-administer tool is desirable to identify older inpatients at higher fall risk. We aimed to develop and internally validate a prognostic prediction model for inpatient falls for older patients., Design: Retrospective analysis of a large cohort drawn from hospital electronic health record data., Setting and Participants: Older patients (≥70 years) admitted to a university medical center (2016 until 2021)., Methods: The outcome was an inpatient fall (≥24 hours of admission). Two prediction models were developed using regularized logistic regression in 5 imputed data sets: one model without predictors indicating missing values (Model-without) and one model with these additional predictors indicating missing values (Model-with). We internally validated our whole model development strategy using 10-fold stratified cross-validation. The models were evaluated using discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and calibration (plot assessment). We determined whether the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of the models were significantly different using DeLong test., Results: Our data set included 21,286 admissions. In total, 470 (2.2%) had a fall after 24 hours of admission. The Model-without had 12 predictors and Model-with 13, of which 4 were indicators of missing values. The AUCs of the Model-without and Model-with were 0.676 (95% CI 0.646-0.707) and 0.695 (95% CI 0.667-0.724). The AUCs between both models were significantly different (P = .013). Calibration was good for both models., Conclusions and Implications: Both the Model-with and Model-without indicators of missing values showed good calibration and fair discrimination, where the Model-with performed better. Our models showed competitive performance to well-established fall-risk-screening tools, and they have the advantage of being based on routinely collected data. This may substantially reduce the burden on nurses, compared with nonautomatic fall-risk-screening tools., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)