BackgroundAlthough several risk assessment tools are in use, uncertainties on their accuracy in detecting fall risk already exist. Choosing the most accurate tool for hospital inpatient is still a challenge for the organizations. We aimed to retrospectively assess the appropriateness of a fall risk prevention program with the STRATIFY assessment tool in detecting acute-care inpatient fall risk.MethodsNumber of falls and near falls, occurred from January 2014 to March 2015, was collected through the incident reporting web-system implemented in the hospital’s intranet. We reported whether the fall risk was assessed with the STRATIFY assessment tool and, if so, which was the judgement. Primary outcome was the proportion of inpatients identified as high risk of fall among inpatients who fell (True Positive Rate), and the proportion of inpatients identified as low-risk that experienced a fall howsoever (False Negative Rate). Characteristics of population and fall events were described among subgroups of low risk and high risk inpatients.ResultsWe collected 365 incident reports from 40 hospital units, 349 (95.6%) were real falls and 16 (4.4%) were near falls. The fall risk assessment score at patient’s admission had been reported in 289 (79%) of the overall incident reports. Thus, 74 (20.3%) fallers were actually not assessed with the STRATIFY, even though the majority of them presented risk recommended to be assessed. The True Positive Rate was 35.6% (n = 101, 95% CI 30% - 41.1%). The False Negative Rate was 64.4% (n = 183, 95% CI 58.9%–70%) of fallers, nevertheless they incurred in a fall. The STRATIFY mean score was 1.3 ± 1.4; the median was 1 (IQQ 0–2).ConclusionsThe prevention program using only the STRATIFY tool was found to be not adequate to screen our inpatients population. The incorrect identification of patients’ needs leads to allocate resources to erroneous priorities and to untargeted interventions, decreasing healthcare performance and quality.

Background: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the most common type of healthcare associated infection in acute care hospitals. Most involve urinary drainage devices, such as urinary catheter. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of catheter-associated urinary tract infections in adult patients of a tertiary level university hospital.Methods: The point prevalence study was conducted in one single day and included all adult patients admitted in medical, surgical wards and intensive care units. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) criteria were adopted to classify the different type of UTIs.Results: Out of a total of 497 adult inpatients, 94 patients had a urinary catheter for at least 48 hours. The prevalence of symptomatic urinary tract infection (SUTI) in this sample is 17%. Escherichia coli (31.2%), Enterococcus faecium (25.0%) and Enterococcus faecalis (12.5%) are the most common pathogens found.Conclusions: The main isolated uropathogens in this study are Gram-negative and Escherichia coli remains one of the most frequent cause of UTIs in human. Gram-negative pathogens have multiple virulent factors responsible for their adherence to uroepithelium and urinary catheter positioning facilitates the transmission of these pathogens to urinary tract. Urinary catheterization is frequently used as solution to facilitate continence and maintain skin integrity in elderly patients. Urinary incontinence frequently is an example of inappropriate use of urinary catheter: for that reason, urinary catheter should be considered as the last option if other solution, like incontinence pads, are not indicated.