Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Use of Standardized and Non-Standardized Tools for Measuring the Risk of Falls and Independence in Clinical Practice

J. Neugebauer, V. Tóthová, J. Doležalová

. 2021 ; 18 (6) : . [pub] 20210320

Language English Country Switzerland

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

(1) Background: The use of standardized tools is regarded as the basis for an evidence-based assessment. The tools enable monitoring of complex events and the effectiveness of adopted interventions. Some healthcare facilities use standardized tools such as the Morse Fall Scale, but many use non-standardized tools created based on patient needs. Our study question was, why are non-standardized tools used when standardized tools are more beneficial and can be statistically evaluated and compared to other results; (2) Methods: We used a quantitative, non-standardized questionnaire to survey 1200 nurses, which was representative sample for the entire Czech Republic. All questionnaires were assessed in two phases (a) the frequency evaluation and descriptive analysis, and (b) hypotheses testing and correlation analyses; (3) Results: We found that the Conley Scale, Barthel test, and IADL test were preferred by many nurses. Furthermore, we found that nurses using standardized assessment scales noticed risk factors significantly more frequently but regarded the increased complexity of care to be psychologically demanding. (4) Conclusions: In patients with physical disabilities, both types of tools (internal non-standardized and standardized) are used to assess the risk of falls and independence; nurses generally welcomed the increase use of standardized tools in their facilities.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21019023
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20210830100555.0
007      
ta
008      
210728s2021 sz f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.3390/ijerph18063226 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)33804715
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a sz
100    1_
$a Neugebauer, Jan $u Institute of Nursing Midwifery and Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice, 370 11 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Use of Standardized and Non-Standardized Tools for Measuring the Risk of Falls and Independence in Clinical Practice / $c J. Neugebauer, V. Tóthová, J. Doležalová
520    9_
$a (1) Background: The use of standardized tools is regarded as the basis for an evidence-based assessment. The tools enable monitoring of complex events and the effectiveness of adopted interventions. Some healthcare facilities use standardized tools such as the Morse Fall Scale, but many use non-standardized tools created based on patient needs. Our study question was, why are non-standardized tools used when standardized tools are more beneficial and can be statistically evaluated and compared to other results; (2) Methods: We used a quantitative, non-standardized questionnaire to survey 1200 nurses, which was representative sample for the entire Czech Republic. All questionnaires were assessed in two phases (a) the frequency evaluation and descriptive analysis, and (b) hypotheses testing and correlation analyses; (3) Results: We found that the Conley Scale, Barthel test, and IADL test were preferred by many nurses. Furthermore, we found that nurses using standardized assessment scales noticed risk factors significantly more frequently but regarded the increased complexity of care to be psychologically demanding. (4) Conclusions: In patients with physical disabilities, both types of tools (internal non-standardized and standardized) are used to assess the risk of falls and independence; nurses generally welcomed the increase use of standardized tools in their facilities.
650    12
$a úrazy pádem $7 D000058
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a rizikové faktory $7 D012307
650    _2
$a průzkumy a dotazníky $7 D011795
651    _2
$a Česká republika $7 D018153
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Tóthová, Valérie $u Institute of Nursing Midwifery and Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice, 370 11 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Doležalová, Jitka $u Institute of Nursing Midwifery and Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice, 370 11 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00176090 $t International journal of environmental research and public health $x 1660-4601 $g Roč. 18, č. 6 (2021)
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33804715 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20210728 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20210830100555 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1689949 $s 1139469
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 18 $c 6 $e 20210320 $i 1660-4601 $m International journal of environmental research and public health $n Int. j. environ. res. public health $x MED00176090
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20210728

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...