Falls Risk Prediction for Older Inpatients in Acute Care Medical Wards: Is There an Interest to Combine an Early Nurse Assessment and the Artificial Neural Network Analysis?

Background

Identification of the risk of falls is important among older inpatients. This study aims to examine performance criteria (i.e.; sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy) for fall prediction resulting from a nurse assessment and an artificial neural networks (ANNs) analysis in older inpatients hospitalized in acute care medical wards.

Methods

A total of 848 older inpatients (mean age, 83.0±7.2 years; 41.8% female) admitted to acute care medical wards in Angers University hospital (France) were included in this study using an observational prospective cohort design. Within 24 hours after admission of older inpatients, nurses performed a bedside clinical assessment. Participants were separated into non-fallers and fallers (i.e.; ≥1 fall during hospitalization stay). The analysis was conducted using three feed forward ANNs (multilayer perceptron [MLP], averaged neural network, and neuroevolution of augmenting topologies [NEAT]).

Results

Seventy-three (8.6%) participants fell at least once during their hospital stay. ANNs showed a high specificity, regardless of which ANN was used, and the highest value reported was with MLP (99.8%). In contrast, sensitivity was lower, with values ranging between 98.4 to 14.8%. MLP had the highest accuracy (99.7).

Conclusions

Performance criteria for fall prediction resulting from a bedside nursing assessment and an ANNs analysis was associated with a high specificity but a low sensitivity, suggesting that this combined approach should be used more as a diagnostic test than a screening test when considering older inpatients in acute care medical ward.

     

On (scientific) integrity: conceptual clarification

The notion of “integrity” is currently quite common and broadly recognized as complex, mostly due to its recurring and diverse application in various distinct domains such as the physical, psychic or moral, the personal or professional, that of the human being or of the totality of beings. Nevertheless, its adjectivation imprints a specific meaning, as happens in the case of “scientific integrity”. This concept has been defined mostly by via negativa, by pointing out what goes against integrity, that is, through the identification of its infringements, which has also not facilitated the elaboration of an overarching and consensual code of scientific integrity. In this context, it is deemed necessary to clarify the notion of “integrity”, first etymologically, recovering the original meaning of the term, and then in a specifically conceptual way, through the identification of the various meanings with which the term can be legitimately used, particularly in the domain of scientific research and innovation. These two steps are fundamental and indispensable for a forthcoming attempt at systematizing the requirements of “scientific integrity”.     

The Jefferson Scale of Empathy: a nationwide study of measurement properties,underlying components,latent variable structure,and national norms in medical students

The Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) is a broadly used instrument developed to measure empathy in the context of health professions education and patient care. Evidence in support of psychometrics of the JSE has been reported in health professions students and practitioners with the exception of osteopathic medical students. This study was designed to examine measurement properties, underlying components, and latent variable structure of the JSE in a nationwide sample of first-year matriculants at U.S. colleges of osteopathic medicine, and to develop a national norm table for the assessment of JSE scores. A web-based survey was administered at the beginning of the 2017–2018 academic year which included the JSE, a scale to detect “good impression” responses, and demographic/background information. Usable surveys were received from 6009 students enrolled in 41 college campuses (median response rate?=?92%). The JSE mean score and standard deviation for the sample were 116.54 and 10.85, respectively. Item-total score correlations were positive and statistically significant (p?<?0.01), and Cronbach α?=?0.82. Significant gender differences were observed on the JSE scores in favor of women. Also, significant differences were found on item scores between top and bottom third scorers on the JSE. Three factors of Perspective Taking, Compassionate Care, and Walking in Patient’s Shoes emerged in an exploratory factor analysis by using half of the sample. Results of confirmatory factor analysis with another half of the sample confirmed the 3-factor model. We also developed a national norm table which is the first to assess students’ JSE scores against national data.