Prognostic validity of the Timed Up-and-Go test, a modified Get-Up-and-Go test, staff's global judgement and fall history in evaluating fall risk in residential care facilities
Open Access
- 30 May 2008
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Age and Ageing
- Vol. 37 (4), 442-448
- https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afn101
Abstract
Objectives: to evaluate and compare the prognostic validity relative to falls of the Timed Up-and-Go test (TUG), a modified Get-Up-and-Go test (GUG-m), staff's judgement of global rating of fall risk (GLORF) and fall history among frail older people. Design: cohort study, 6-month prospective follow-up for falls. Participants: 183 frail persons living in residential care facilities in Sweden, mean age 84 years, 73% women. Methods: the occurrence of falls during the follow-up period were compared to the following assessments at baseline: the TUG at normal speed; the GUG-m, a rating of fall risk scored from 1 (no risk) to 5 (very high risk); the GLORF, staff's rating of fall risk as ’high’ or ’low’; a history of falls in the previous 6 months. These assessment tools were evaluated using sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ to rule in and LR− to rule out a high fall risk). Results: 53% of the participants fell at least once. Various cut-off values of the TUG (12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 s) and the GUG-m showed LR+ between 0.9 and 2.6 and LR− between 0.1 and 1.0. The GLORF showed an LR+ of 2.8 and an LR− of 0.6 and fall history showed an LR+ of 2.4 and an LR− of 0.6. Conclusions: in this population of frail older people, staff judgement of their residents' fall risk as well as previous falls both appear superior to the performance-based measures TUG and GUG-m in ruling in a high fall risk. A TUG score of less than 15 s gives guidance in ruling out a high fall risk but insufficient information in ruling in such a risk. The grading of fall risk by GUG-m appears of very limited value.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Will My Patient Fall?JAMA, 2007
- Frail elderly patients with dementia go too fastJournal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 2006
- A Physiological Profile Approach to Falls Risk Assessment and PreventionPTJ: Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Journal, 2003
- Predicting falls in residential care by a risk assessment tool, staff judgement, and history of fallsAging Clinical and Experimental Research, 2003
- A comparison of four functional tests in discriminating fallers from non-fallers in older peopleDisability and Rehabilitation, 2003
- Injuries among older adults: the challenge of optimizing safety and minimizing unintended consequencesInjury Prevention, 2002
- A clinical test of stepping and change of direction to identify multiple falling older adultsArchives Of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2002
- Incidence rate of falls in an aged population in Northern FinlandJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1994
- The Timed “Up & Go”: A Test of Basic Functional Mobility for Frail Elderly PersonsJournal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1991
- Predictors of Falls Among Elderly PeopleArchives of Internal Medicine, 1989