Proposed Topic (Most preferred): :
Research and Innovations (new projects / technology / innovations / service models)
Proposed Topic (Second preferred): :
Clinical Safety and Quality Service II (Projects aiming to enhance clinical safety and outcomes, clinical governance / risk management)
Authors (including presenting author) :
Yau WM(1), Wan SYS(1), Chiang WH(1), Chan YKJ (1), Wong R(1), Kwong SFS(2),Tao YCK(2), Wong HC(2), Wong YY(2), Soo WLA(2), Lam KS(3), Lau KM(3), Chan M(4)(5), Fung P(4)(5), Lo J(4)(5), Cheung V(6)
Affiliation :
(1) Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital (2) Ruttonjee & Tang Shiu Kin Hospitals (3) Tung Wah Eastern Hospital (4)Information Technology & Health Informatics Division (5)IT Innovation Office (6)Booguu Co. Ltd.
Introduction :
In-patient fall remains a heated topic for quality and safety issues. Existing tools, notably the Morse Fall Scale (MFS) face challenges in consistently identifying high-risk inpatients. A 2-year retrospective analysis at Hong Kong East Cluster (HKEC) revealed nearly half of incidents occurred in patients labeled as ‘low fall risk’ by MFS. The HKEC Fall Prevention Working Group, Information Technology & Health Informatics Division, IT Innovation Office and Booguu Co. Ltd. explored the efficacy of Aspire Motion® (AM) to enhance fall risk screening for heightened accuracy and objectivity.
In this study, fall risk assessment involved physiotherapists’ clinical judgment, Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Elderly Mobility Scale (EMS), two validated and widely used balance and mobility assessment tools in hospital settings.
Objectives :
To evaluate the effectiveness of AM in stratifying fall risk by correlating its findings to BBS, EMS, and MFS.
Methodology :
This cross-sectional study included 200 geriatric patients from 3 HKEC hospitals (PYNEH, RTSKH, and TWEH) from October 2022 to October 2023. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 50 or above, cooperative, and clinically stable; exclusion criteria were chair- or bed-bound patients.
Outcome measures included AM assessment, BBS, and/or EMS. AM assessment involved gait test, sit to stand test and standing balance test, generating a score from 1-100, with cutoff scores set at 55 for Convalescent Ward patients and 25 for Acute Ward patients.
Result & Outcome :
In total, 200 subjects participated, undergoing AM assessment, with 89 sets of BBS data and 159 sets of EMS data collected.
Comparative analysis revealed strong correlations between AM assessments and BBS (0.63, p < .00001) and moderate associations with EMS (0.53, p < .00001). MFS showed no significant correlation with physiotherapy fall risk assessments (Berg: 0.14, p > 0.3; EMS: 0.01, p > 0.9). The observed high and moderate correlations between AM and benchmark tests underscore its potential as a comprehensive and reliable tool in fall risk assessment.
