Fall Risk Assessment Scales: Comparison
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Vicky Zhou and Version 1 by ANGELA PRENDIN.

Le cadute sono riconosciute a livello mondiale come un grave problema di salute pubblica. Sebbene gli anziani siano la popolazione più colpita, va notato che anche la popolazione pediatrica è molto suscettibile al rischio di caduta. L'approccio al rischio di caduta è lo strumento di valutazione. Esistono diversi tipi di strumenti utilizzati sia in ambito clinico che territoriale.

  • fall
  • scale
  • assessment tool
  • review

1. Introduzione

Il fenomeno delle cadute è riconosciuto a livello mondiale come un grave problema di salute pubblica. La caduta è il problema sanitario numero uno a livello globale e un problema comune di valutazione da parte degli operatori sanitari. Una caduta è definita come un "movimento improvviso, non intenzionale e inaspettato dalla posizione ortostatica, dal sedile alla posizione o dalla posizione clinica" [ 1 ]. Le cadute coinvolgono le persone anziane per due ragioni principali: (1) la diminuzione delle riserve funzionali che servono a mantenere la posizione ortostatica; (2) le seguenti vulnerabilità o patologie causate da fattori che si verificano contemporaneamente, processi patologici e incentivi farmacologici avversi. Le persone con più di 65 anni hanno la più alta probabilità di cadere: il 30% di loro cade almeno una volta all'anno, mentre le percentuali diventano più alte, (circa il 50%) sulle persone con più di 80 anni [ 2 ] . Anche se gli anziani corrono il maggior rischio di caduta, è necessario sottolineare che anche la popolazione pediatrica corre un rischio piuttosto elevato di caduta. Circa tre milioni di bambini sono vittime di ferite legate alle cadute annuali [ 3 ]. Sebbene quasi il 40% delle cadute giornaliere totali in tutto il mondo si verifichino nei bambini, questa misurazione potrebbe non riflettere accuratamente l'impatto delle disabilità legate alla caduta per gli individui più anziani che hanno esiti più disabilitanti e sono a maggior rischio di istituzionalizzazione [ 1 ] .
The financial costs of fall injuries are substantial. For people aged 65 and over in Finland and Australia, it was calculated at USD 3611 and USD 1049, respectively. Evidence from Canada suggests implementing effective prevention strategies with a subsequent 20% reduction of the incidence of falls among children under 10 could create net savings of more than USD 120 million annually [1]. The Joint Commission International for Accreditation Standards for Hospitals specifies that hospitals should aim to reduce the risk of injury from falls to inpatients and outpatients, including appropriate screening or assessment of fall risk tools, a process for re-evaluation, especially if there are changes in the patient’s condition; and implement interventions to reduce the risk of falling [4]. For this reason, risk assessment is important. The expression of risk assessment is based on the following: checklists drafted of different risk factors for fall and numerical indexes to predict the risk. The checklists help the staff to identify the most common factors, while the numerical index is used to predict the risk of an individual using a numerical score that is proportional to the number of risk factors included [5].
However, the characteristics of the patient for a fall risk tool are varied: age, cognitive state, state of health in general, particular comorbidities, hospital or home context. These are just a few features. In fact, in recent studies, particular risk factors have been evaluated such as being hospitalized, being hospitalized in neuropsychiatry, suffering from dementia and delirium, and going to the bathroom [6].
Currently in the literature, there is no study that summarizes the tools available to healthcare professionals according to the different contexts in which they operate. Knowing the fall assessment tools, through the analysis of their characteristics, allows to identify the most suitable scale for each individual patient and to prevent the risk. As described in NICE, 2004, the patients should be cared for by personnel who have undergone appropriate training and who know how to initiate and maintain correct and suitable preventative measures. Staffing levels and skill mix should reflect the needs of patients [6].

2. Fall Risk Assessment Scales

The vast majority of the proposed tools have been developed for use in acute and geriatric settings, in which there are numerous factors that expose individuals to this risk. The target most subjected to the assessment is the elderly population (>65 years), followed by people suffering from pathologies that alter walking and balance skills (e.g., Parkinson’s disease, mental disabilities, stroke outcomes, etc.). Falls Efficacy Scale—International (FES-I). The FES-I scale is the most used tool in literature for the “fear of falling” evaluation, a factor closely related to the genesis of falls [7]. This scale refers only to basic daily activities of frail elderly people or people with disabilities. The FES-I includes 16 daily life activities, and the individual must report the perceived degree of concern in implementing each of the activities listed. It is the ideal tool for investigating the “fear of falling” of the elderly in normal daily activities. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC Scale) was developed to assess the perceived degree of confidence in maintaining balance or not becoming unstable in performing various functional tasks. It is a structured questionnaire that measures the confidence of an individual in carrying out activities and consists in attributing a percentage value, between “insecurity” and “complete security”, to the 16 proposed activities [8]. The ABC scale is simple to complete, and the time required for filling out can be as much as 20 min, which is why a simplified version has been proposed that includes six of the most challenging activities of the previous scale. The scale has been validated for use with different ratings including people with Parkinson’s Syndrome, post-stroke, with lower limb amputations and vestibular disorders; it has also been translated into several languages besides English such as Swedish, Chinese, Canadian French and Arabic [9]. Comparing the two scales, it emerged that the FES-I scale has a greater appropriateness of use in clinical settings than the ABC Scale, whose use is recommended mainly in the elderly living at home [7]. The STRATIFY scale is a predictive tool for the risk of falls in hospitalized patients. The compilation of the scale is not performed through direct observation of the patient, but the evaluator reports the score based on information obtained from the previous observation or from other caregivers. STRATIFY has been extensively studied in intensive care units in Australia, Europe and Canada [10] and has also been applied in numerous geriatric and rehabilitation departments [11]. In these contexts, it has long been considered the “Gold standard” tool to be used at patient admission thanks to the high sensitivity value demonstrated by numerous studies (between 73.7% and 93.0%) and the simplicity and speed of application (3 min). At the same time, some studies criticize its reduced specificity, or identify its scarce usefulness if applied in different or specific contexts such as rehabilitation from traumatic brain injury, or in patients younger than 65 years old. The Hendrich II Fall Risk Model (HIIFRM) was designed to identify adult patients at risk of falling in acute care hospitals [12]. Unlike the STRATIFY scale, the history of previous falls was not considered as a risk factor. They are also taken into account due to drug categories that are at greater risk for falls and side effects than other drug categories. The time required for its compilation is approximately similar to that of the STRATIFY scale. The scale was tested on acute phase patients with different diagnoses (diabetes mellitus, stroke, heart failure), demonstrating that its effectiveness varies according to the patient group, the healthcare professional’s skill level and the clinical units in which is applied. The Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT) was used for the multi-factorial assessment of the risk of falling in departments for acute patients [13]. The JHFRAT scale is a tool that makes possible to implement a multi-factorial assessment of the risk of falling in a simple way, which requires an average of 5 min for its completion and is widely used in adult departments in the acute phase [14]. However, there are discordant results in the literature regarding its statistical characteristics: in some studies, a high sensitivity is reported, but a low specificity, vice versa in other studies, which consider it weak if used in specific contexts, such as in the departments of medicine [14][15]. The Tinetti Mobility Test (TMT) or the Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA) consists of the combined use of the useful components drawn from both approaches [16]. The total POMA (POMA-T) consists of two sub-scales: the balance rating scale (“balance scale” or POMA-B) and the gait rating scale (“gait scale” or POMA-G) [17]. The scale is also used in different clinical contexts: its effectiveness was analyzed on patients with Parkinson’s disease, with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington’s disease and community-resident elderly [17]. The time taken is 5–10 min, but it requires training for the examiner as a prerequisite and requires some equipment (stopwatch, chair, 5-pound object = about 2.5 kg and a space to walk 15 feet = about 5 m). It can also be burdensome for patients. There is a “long” version of the scale consisting of a total of 40 points that assesses the individual in more depth, but consequently requires more time for its application [6]. The Aachen Falls Prevention Scale was developed in order to allow the elderly to perform a self-assessment of their risk of falling [18]. The Aachen Fall Prevention Scale is an easy-to-understand tool that investigates various factors that contribute to the genesis of falls and introduces a quick and safe test; it allows the individual to perform a self-assessment and increase the degree of self-perception. The authors have also created an evaluation index, the “Aachen Mobility and Balance Index” to measure the physiological risk of falling in the elderly at home; this includes the execution of performances characterized by the progressive increase of difficulty in the components of balance, mobility and grip strength required for the completion of the test. The index demonstrated a strong correlation with the Tinetti POMA Scale and a good degree of discrimination between individuals at risk of falling and not, but the time required to execute the performances and the necessary equipment make it more complex. The Fullerton Advanced Balance (FAB) Scale is a multidimensional tool for assessing balance developed for functionally independent seniors. It aims to identify highly active seniors who are at increased risk of suffering fall-related injuries due to sensory impairments [19]. The validity of its contents is based on a theoretical analysis of the components of the static and dynamic balance, the reception and integration of the sensory components and the anticipatory and reactive postural control. Berg Balance Scale (BBS) was developed for the evaluation of both static and dynamic balance capacity. It provides a detailed balance assessment and has been extensively tested in various contexts: United States, Canada, Brazil, Australia, China, Japan, Korea and United Kingdom. It has shown accuracy in predicting falls in different types of population (elderly living in communities or suffering from chronic diseases or with intellectual and visual disabilities) and a greater sensitivity was highlighted when applied in populations affected by diseases that affect the balance (e.g., neuromuscular pathologies) both in clinical and home settings [20]. Compared to the FAB scale, it has a “ceiling effect” that does not allow it to be administered to physically active elderly people [21]. It also requires a much longer application time, about 20 min. The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) aims to identify the disordered systems underlying postural control responsible for poor functional balance in adults. It is widely used to evaluate six balance control systems; however, it is difficult to apply in clinical situations due to the long administration time (approximately 20–30 min). The BESTest has two shorter versions: the Mini-BESTest [22], developed in 2010, allows the evaluation of four balance control systems (compared to the six total of the original) and has been used with different clinical populations and has shown particular psychometric properties in individuals with Parkinson’s syndrome [23]. Il test, però, richiede una discreta quantità di attrezzatura per essere completato e, inoltre, si concentra sull'equilibrio dinamico, senza valutare tutti i sistemi di controllo della stabilità; mentre il Brief-BESTest, sviluppato nel 2012, è una versione ridotta, composta da otto voci che consentono un'analisi di tutti e sei i sistemi di controllo del saldo valutati dal BESTest; inoltre, richiede ancora meno tempo e materiale per completarlo [ 24 ] . Il confronto dei due test mostra che il Brief-BESTest è consigliato come guida per la pianificazione degli interventi, mentre il Mini-BESTest è più appropriato come strumento di screening per l'equilibrio dinamico dei pazienti [ 23 ] .

3. Conclusioni

Tra la maggior parte degli strumenti di valutazione del rischio di caduta, 23 strumenti sono rivolti ai pazienti ospedalizzati, otto sono utilizzati per la valutazione del rischio nei residenti a domicilio, mentre sette sono applicabili a entrambe le popolazioni. Lo scopo principale dell'utilizzo di uno strumento di valutazione del rischio di caduta non è ridurre le cadute, ma identificare gli individui ad alto e basso rischio [ 20 ] . In questo modo vengono individuati i soggetti che necessitano di un'analisi più approfondita e l'attenzione dell'operatore sanitario è focalizzata sui principali fattori di rischio responsabili delle cadute. A questi soggetti dovrebbe essere offerta una valutazione multifattoriale del rischio di caduta [ 6 ] .
Secondo alcuni studi, per massimizzare le caratteristiche di prevedibilità di ogni strumento, sarebbe consigliabile utilizzare due test in combinazione.
Infatti, a causa della natura multidimensionale del rischio di caduta, non esiste un unico strumento “ideale” che possa essere utilizzato in qualsiasi contesto o che esegua una perfetta valutazione del rischio. Si raccomanda l'applicazione simultanea di più strumenti ed è indispensabile un'analisi diretta e approfondita da parte del professionista sanitario [ 6 ] . I risultati della valutazione del rischio dovrebbero essere discussi all'interno del team multiprofessionale al fine di identificare gli interventi più efficaci per prevenire le cadute, soprattutto tra le persone con disturbi cognitivi, dove il rischio di caduta è molto comune e hanno eziologie diverse [ 25 ] .


  1. World Health Organization. Falls. Available online: (accessed on 2 January 2021).
  2. Centre for Clinical Practice at NICE (UK). Falls: Assessment and Prevention of Falls in Older People; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: London, UK, 2013.
  3. DiGerolamo, K.; Davis, K.F. An Integrative Review of Pediatric Fall Risk Assessment Tools. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 2017, 34, 23–28.
  4. Teo, S.P. Fall risk assessment tools—Validity considerations and a recommended approach. Italy J. Med. 2019, 13, 200–204.
  5. Wong Shee, A.; Phillips, B.; Hill, K. Comparison of two fall risk assessment tools (FRATs) targeting falls prevention in sub-acute care. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2012, 55, 653–659.
  6. McInnes, L.; Gibbons, E.; Chandler-Oatts, J. Clinical practice guideline for the assessment and prevention of falls in older people. Worldviews Evid. -Based Nurs. 2005, 2, 33–36.
  7. Yardley, L.; Beyer, N.; Hauer, K.; Kempen, G.; Piot-Ziegler, C.; Todd, C. Development and initial validation of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I). Age Ageing 2005, 34, 614–619.
  8. Powell, L.E.; Myers, A.M. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 1995, 50, M28–M34.
  9. Alghwiri, A.A.; Alghadir, A.H.; Al-Momani, M.O.; Whitney, S.L. The activities-specific balance confidence scale and berg balance scale: Reliability and validity in Arabic-speaking vestibular patients. J. Vestib. Res. 2016, 25, 253–259.
  10. Barker, A.; Kamar, J.; Graco, M.; Lawlor, V.; Hill, K. Adding value to the STRATIFY falls risk assessment in acute hospitals. J. Adv. Nurs. 2011, 67, 450–457.
  11. Aranda-Gallardo, M.; Enriquez de Luna-Rodriguez, M.; Vazquez-Blanco, M.J.; Canca-Sanchez, J.C.; Moya-Suarez, A.B.; Morales-Asencio, J.M. Diagnostic validity of the STRATIFY and Downton instruments for evaluating the risk of falls by hospitalised acute-care patients: A multicentre longitudinal study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2017, 17, 277.
  12. Hendrich, A. How to try this: Predicting patient falls. Using the Hendrich II Fall Risk Model in clinical practice. Am. J. Nurs. 2007, 107, 50–59.
  13. Poe, S.S.; Cvach, M.M.; Gartrelu, D.G.; Radzik, B.R.; Joy, T.L. An evidence-based approach to fall risk assessment, prevention, and management: Lessons learned. J. Nurs. Care Qual. 2005, 20, 107–118.
  14. Poe, S.S.; Dawson, P.B.; Cvach, M.; Burnett, M.; Kumble, S.; Lewis, M.; Thompson, C.B.; Hill, E.E. The Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool: A Study of Reliability and Validity. J. Nurs. Care Qual. 2018, 33, 10–19.
  15. Klinkenberg, W.D.; Potter, P. Validity of the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool for Predicting Falls on Inpatient Medicine Services. J. Nurs. Care Qual. 2017, 2, 108–113.
  16. Tinetti, M.E. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1986, 34, 119–126.
  17. Kloos, A.D.; Kegelmeyer, D.A.; Young, G.S.; Kostyk, S.K. Fall risk assessment using the Tinetti mobility test in individuals with Huntington’s disease. Mov. Disord. 2010, 25, 2838–2844.
  18. Pape, H.C.; Schemmann, U.; Foerster, J.; Knobe, M. The ‘Aachen Falls Prevention Scale’—Development of a tool for self-assessment of elderly patients at risk for ground level falls. Patient Saf. Surg. 2015, 9, 7.
  19. Rose, D.J.; Lucchese, N.; Wiersma, L.D. Development of a multidimensional balance scale for use with functionally independent older adults. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2006, 87, 1478–1485.
  20. Park, S.H.; Lee, Y.S. The Diagnostic Accuracy of the Berg Balance Scale in Predicting Falls. West J. Nurs. Res. 2017, 39, 1502–1525.
  21. Santos, G.M.; Souza, A.C.; Virtuoso, J.F.; Tavares, G.M.; Mazo, G.Z. Predictive values at risk of falling in physically active and no active elderly with Berg Balance Scale. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2011, 15, 95–101.
  22. Schurr, K.; Ho, G.; Sherrington, C.; Pamphlett, P.; Gale, L. Measurement of the ability to stand up from the lowest possible chair height: Procedure and interrater reliability. In Proceedings of the Australian Physiotherapy Association Conference Proceedings, Canberra, Australia, 25–28 May 2002.
  23. O’Hoski, S.; Sibley, K.M.; Brooks, D.; Beauchamp, M.K. Construct validity of the BESTest, mini-BESTest and briefBESTest in adults aged 50 years and older. Gait Posture 2015, 42, 301–305.
  24. Duncan, R.P.; Leddy, A.L.; Earhart, G.M. Five times sit-to-stand test performance in Parkinson’s disease. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2011, 92, 1431–1436.
  25. Schirinzi, T.; Di Lorenzo, F.; Sancesario, G.M.; Di Lazzaro, G.; Ponzo, V.; Pisani, A.; Mercuri, N.B.; Koch, G.; Martorana, A. Amyloid-Mediated Cholinergic Dysfunction in Motor Impairment Related to Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2018, 64, 525–532.