The purpose of the study was to validate fall risk assessment scales among hospitalized adult patients in South Korea using the electronic medical records by comparing sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of Morse Fall Scale (MFS), Bobath Memorial Hospital Fall Risk Assessment Scale (BMFRAS), and Johns Hopkins Hospital Fall Risk Assessment tool (JHFRAT). Methods: A total of 120 patients who experienced fall episodes during their hospitalization from June 2010 to December 2013 was categorized into the fall group. Another 120 patients, who didn't experience fall episodes with age, sex, clinical departments, and the type of wards matched with the fall group, were categorized to the comparison group. Data were analyzed for the comparisons of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the area under the curve of the three tools. Results: MFS at a cutoff score of 48 had .806 for ROC curves, 76.7% for sensitivity, 77.5% for specificity, 77.3% for positive predictive value, and 76.9% for negative predictive value, which were the highest values among the three fall assessment scales. Conclusion: The MFS with the highest score and the highest discrimination was evaluated to be suitable and reasonable for predicting falls of inpatients in med-surg units of university hospitals.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify falls and related risks of hospitalized patients in order to provide an baseline data to develop effective nursing intervention programs for fall prevention. Methods: The data on 120 patients who experienced falls from 2010 to 2013 during their hospitalization were collected from the patient' electronic medical records of an university hospital. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics using SPSS/WIN 20.0. Results: Over 60% of the patients who experienced falls during their hospitalization was 65 years or older, and most of them had hypertension. Majority of the subjects needed help to perform daily activities (64%) and complained of general weakness (49.2%). Prior to the falls, the patients were taking average 2.52 medications to treat hypertension. The Fall accident was mostly frequently occurred in their hospital room (59.2%), or in bed (44.2%). The patients aged 70 years and older were significantly less alert than younger group, and taking more cardiovascular medications. Most fall risk factors were not significantly different for age, gender, and department category. Conclusion: The study findings suggest the need to emphasize the nurses to be more actively aware of fall risk factors and to provide aggressive interventions for preventing falls in hospitalized patients.

Purpose:The aim of the study was to examine effects of a fall prevention education program among inpatients over 65 years old. Methods: A quasi-experimental study with two intervention groups and a comparison was used. One hundred and forty-three participants recruited from one university hospital were assigned to one of three groups: Video-only education (n=49), video plus leaflet education (n=45), and a comparison group who received a routine education (n=49). The data collection period was from March to August 2016. Results: The two intervention groups reported higher scores in fall prevention behaviors than the comparison group (F=19.83, p<.001). Participants who viewed the video and received the leaflet education reported higher scores than those with video only education. The scores of attitudes toward falls (F=16.05, p<.001), and satisfaction with education (F=40.02, p<.001) in both intervention groups were also significantly higher than the comparison group, with no significant difference between the two intervention groups. Conclusion: The fall prevention program was effective in improving fall-related attitude and satisfaction among elderly inpatients. Since the video plus leaflet education was most effective in improving prevention behaviors, it might be included in routine orientation on admission for the elderly.