Failure of falls risk screening tools to predict outcome: A prospective cohort study

Kristie J. Harper, Annette D. Barton, Glenn Arendts, Deborah G. Edwards, Antonio C. Petta, Antonio Celenza

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)


Objective: To compare the Falls Risk for Older Persons-Community Setting Screening Tool (FROP Com Screen) with the Two-Item Screening Tool in older adults presenting to the ED.Methods: A prospective cohort study, comparing the efficacy of the two falls risk assessment tools by applying them simultaneously in a sample of hospital ED presentations.Results: Two hundred and one patients over 65 years old were recruited. Thirty-six per cent reported falls in the 6-month follow-up period. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.57 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.66) for the FROP Com Screen and 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.63) for the Two-Item Screening Tool. FROP Com Screen had a sensitivity of 39% (95% CI 0.27 to 0.51) and a specificity of 70% (95% CI 0.61 to 0.78), while the Two-Item Screening Tool had a sensitivity of 48% (95% CI 0.36 to 0.60) and a specificity of 57% (95% CI 0.47 to 0.66).Conclusion: Both tools have limited predictive ability in the ED setting.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)28-32
JournalEmergency Medicine Journal
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2018

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Failure of falls risk screening tools to predict outcome: A prospective cohort study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this