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

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F60076658%3A12110%2F21%3A43902507" target="_blank" >RIV/60076658:12110/21:43902507 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3226/htm" target="_blank" >https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3226/htm</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063226" target="_blank" >10.3390/ijerph18063226</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

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

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

(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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

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

Popis výsledku anglicky

(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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30307 - Nursing

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

International Journal of Enviromental Research and Public Health

ISSN

1660-4601

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

18

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

6

Stát vydavatele periodika

CH - Švýcarská konfederace

Počet stran výsledku

11

Strana od-do

3226

Kód UT WoS článku

000639186600001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85102684231