FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2018647798> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2018647798 endingPage "394" @default.
• W2018647798 startingPage "387" @default.
• W2018647798 abstract "Objective Falls in nursing homes occur among a large percentage of residents. Their onset necessitates a postfall assessment (PFA) be performed by clinical staff to determine likely etiology. The absence of an empirically validated comprehensive postfall assessment tool has led to considerable variability in the types of PFAs performed. The purpose of this study was to examine the types of PFA tools available, their content, and to compare this with national recommendations for fall assessment in geriatric practice. Setting A convenience sample of 379 long-term care facilities, with a cumulative census of over 40,000 residents, in New Jersey were solicited to return to the Director of Long-Term Care Surveys at the NJ Department of Health and Senior Services a copy of any PFA tools used in practice. Methods A review of the types of assessment tools used in each of the responding facilities were tabulated and coded as belonging to one of five categories: (1) fall-risk assessment short form, (2) fall-risk assessment long form, (3) fall prevention protocols such as fall programs and postfall assessment forms, (4) incident reports, and (5) other. A subset of 20 facilities used a specific PFA. This content was further analyzed and compared with national and professional recommendations for PFA that included five domains: (1) history of the fall, (2) environmental issues, (3) physical examination, (4) functional assessment, and (5) laboratory and other diagnostics. Results Of 379 facilities solicited, 149 responded (40%) to reveal a wide array of tools used for the purpose of PFA. These included: risk assessment tools, fall prevention programs, policies and procedures for fall management, and incident reports. Overall, most facilities used fall-risk assessment tools in place of PFA (63.7%; n = 95). Many of the nationally recommended guidelines for PFA were not included in the tools included in this sample, with the exception of environmental questions that were evident in all PFAs surveyed (100%). Other fall circumstances related to time, mobility, and footwear were included less often (70% n = 14) as were use of diuretics (55% = 11), mental status and ambulation ability (45% n = 9) of the falling older adult. Conclusion Despite recommendations in the geriatric literature, comprehensive postfall assessment tools were unavailable for use by nursing home staff. When a PFA was performed, there was no consistency among facilities sampled. Data collected was minimal and unlikely to reveal the full range of possible underlying etiologies. Improved, validated PFA tools are needed to aid clinical staff in evaluating older adults who have fallen. (J Am Med Dir Assoc 2004; 5: 387-394) Falls in nursing homes occur among a large percentage of residents. Their onset necessitates a postfall assessment (PFA) be performed by clinical staff to determine likely etiology. The absence of an empirically validated comprehensive postfall assessment tool has led to considerable variability in the types of PFAs performed. The purpose of this study was to examine the types of PFA tools available, their content, and to compare this with national recommendations for fall assessment in geriatric practice. A convenience sample of 379 long-term care facilities, with a cumulative census of over 40,000 residents, in New Jersey were solicited to return to the Director of Long-Term Care Surveys at the NJ Department of Health and Senior Services a copy of any PFA tools used in practice. A review of the types of assessment tools used in each of the responding facilities were tabulated and coded as belonging to one of five categories: (1) fall-risk assessment short form, (2) fall-risk assessment long form, (3) fall prevention protocols such as fall programs and postfall assessment forms, (4) incident reports, and (5) other. A subset of 20 facilities used a specific PFA. This content was further analyzed and compared with national and professional recommendations for PFA that included five domains: (1) history of the fall, (2) environmental issues, (3) physical examination, (4) functional assessment, and (5) laboratory and other diagnostics. Of 379 facilities solicited, 149 responded (40%) to reveal a wide array of tools used for the purpose of PFA. These included: risk assessment tools, fall prevention programs, policies and procedures for fall management, and incident reports. Overall, most facilities used fall-risk assessment tools in place of PFA (63.7%; n = 95). Many of the nationally recommended guidelines for PFA were not included in the tools included in this sample, with the exception of environmental questions that were evident in all PFAs surveyed (100%). Other fall circumstances related to time, mobility, and footwear were included less often (70% n = 14) as were use of diuretics (55% = 11), mental status and ambulation ability (45% n = 9) of the falling older adult. Despite recommendations in the geriatric literature, comprehensive postfall assessment tools were unavailable for use by nursing home staff. When a PFA was performed, there was no consistency among facilities sampled. Data collected was minimal and unlikely to reveal the full range of possible underlying etiologies. Improved, validated PFA tools are needed to aid clinical staff in evaluating older adults who have fallen. (J Am Med Dir Assoc 2004; 5: 387-394)" @default.
• W2018647798 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2018647798 creator A5007782127 @default.
• W2018647798 creator A5020931425 @default.
• W2018647798 creator A5023217951 @default.
• W2018647798 creator A5037549134 @default.
• W2018647798 creator A5088362955 @default.
• W2018647798 date "2004-11-01" @default.
• W2018647798 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2018647798 title "Current Approaches to Postfall Assessment in Nursing Homes" @default.
• W2018647798 cites W189169674 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W1969104339 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W1982921708 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2004373854 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2006711104 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2017661811 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2034772834 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2036033527 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2071317205 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2083016855 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2102366287 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2103383365 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2111382892 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2124499523 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2139075394 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2163237013 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2165431694 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W2314342491 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W4238143751 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W4249342466 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W4302198886 @default.
• W2018647798 cites W73659361 @default.
• W2018647798 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s1525-8610(04)70007-9" @default.
• W2018647798 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15530177" @default.
• W2018647798 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2018647798 type Work @default.
• W2018647798 sameAs 2018647798 @default.
• W2018647798 citedByCount "18" @default.
• W2018647798 countsByYear W20186477982012 @default.
• W2018647798 countsByYear W20186477982014 @default.
• W2018647798 countsByYear W20186477982016 @default.
• W2018647798 countsByYear W20186477982018 @default.
• W2018647798 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2018647798 hasAuthorship W2018647798A5007782127 @default.
• W2018647798 hasAuthorship W2018647798A5020931425 @default.
• W2018647798 hasAuthorship W2018647798A5023217951 @default.
• W2018647798 hasAuthorship W2018647798A5037549134 @default.
• W2018647798 hasAuthorship W2018647798A5088362955 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConcept C12174686 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConcept C190385971 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConcept C2776516907 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConcept C2780233487 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConcept C3017944768 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConcept C74909509 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConceptScore W2018647798C12174686 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConceptScore W2018647798C159110408 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConceptScore W2018647798C190385971 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConceptScore W2018647798C2776516907 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConceptScore W2018647798C2780233487 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConceptScore W2018647798C3017944768 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConceptScore W2018647798C38652104 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConceptScore W2018647798C41008148 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConceptScore W2018647798C512399662 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConceptScore W2018647798C71924100 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConceptScore W2018647798C74909509 @default.
• W2018647798 hasConceptScore W2018647798C99454951 @default.
• W2018647798 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2018647798 hasLocation W20186477981 @default.
• W2018647798 hasLocation W20186477982 @default.
• W2018647798 hasOpenAccess W2018647798 @default.
• W2018647798 hasPrimaryLocation W20186477981 @default.
• W2018647798 hasRelatedWork W2018647798 @default.
• W2018647798 hasRelatedWork W2106428841 @default.
• W2018647798 hasRelatedWork W2329226628 @default.
• W2018647798 hasRelatedWork W2605336836 @default.
• W2018647798 hasRelatedWork W2987900918 @default.
• W2018647798 hasRelatedWork W2992743702 @default.
• W2018647798 hasRelatedWork W3012879380 @default.
• W2018647798 hasRelatedWork W3095874762 @default.
• W2018647798 hasRelatedWork W3135350975 @default.
• W2018647798 hasRelatedWork W4315865854 @default.
• W2018647798 hasVolume "5" @default.
• W2018647798 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2018647798 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2018647798 magId "2018647798" @default.
• W2018647798 workType "article" @default.