Original ContributionEffectiveness of the “Timed Up and Go” (TUG) and the Chair test as screening tools for geriatric fall risk assessment in the ED☆
Introduction
Falls remain one of the top 20 most expensive medical conditions with hospital costs averaging over $30,000 per encounter; in 2015, alone, the costs for falls for those aged 65 and above to Medicare totaled $31 billion [1]. Recent research efforts of fall interventions in older adults have identified many differences in risk factors associated with sex in determining geriatric fall risks—in one example, a recent longitudinal study in Age and Aging found that age, depressive symptoms, and performance on standing balance tests were separate determinants for men, while incontinence and frailty increased fall risks in women [2]. Another cross-sectional study found unique associations to each sex such as nutritional risks, osteoporosis and even levels of household income [3].
Contrary to these reported differences, fall risks are clinically assessed the in the same manner for both sexes. These assessments tend to be functional in nature despite the limited success in predicting fall risk [4]. A recent systematic review identified a protective bias towards women needing fall prevention programs more than men (though increased activity is protective for both males and females), while males consistently sustain higher death rates and Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost worldwide [5]. More research is required to identify and validate sex differences in fall risk, so that practitioners may be better equipped to assess them.
Serving as the frontline of acute healthcare, the Emergency Department (ED) may be an ideal place to recognize these factors and initiate a pathway for early multidisciplinary interventions. Already, unintentional falls account for about 13.5% of Emergency Department (ED) visits, a staggering 3 million emergency department visits annually [6, 7]. There is a dearth of studies that seek to identify those at risk of falls during an encounter, including for non-traumatic visits in the ED. There has been a call for streamlined screening protocols in the ED for the geriatric population [8].
The Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) and the 30-Second Chair test are proposed by the CDC [9, 10] as a means of screening elderly patients for increased risk for falls. While the TUG test has shown a decreased performance in females compared to males among the geriatric mild cognitive impairment (MCI) population [11], the Chair test has not been evaluated for effectiveness by sex. Neither test has been evaluated in the ED setting. In this setting, a desirable test would offer an objective means of screening while being effortless enough to be performed within the time constrained environment. Such a tool would optimally assist clinicians in mitigating future morbidity/mortality of their elderly patients. In this study, we sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the TUG and Chair test in the ED setting, stratified by sex.
Section snippets
Methods
After hospital IRB review and approval, this prospective trial was conducted in the ED of a Level 1 Trauma Center in Northeastern Pennsylvania with an annual census of over 90,000 adult visits per year. Participants were screened and included in the study if they were ≥65 years old, being discharged from the ED, English speaking, had capacity for consent, and personally identified a risk factor for falling. Risk factors for falling were based on Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines [ 12
Results
Two hundred participants were enrolled into this study. Of these, 8 were excluded from analysis because they: withdrew consent (n = 3), were lost to follow-up (n = 2), died prior to 6-month follow-up evaluation (n = 2), or were deemed ineligible after enrollment (n = 1) (See Fig. 1). The resultant sample size was 192 participants. The characteristics of the study sample, stratified by participant gender, are presented in Table 1. A majority of the participants were female (n = 111, 57.8%). The
Discussion
In 2014, at a Society for Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, it was determined that a prioritized research agenda should include finding the most feasible falls-risk tool for men and women in the ED setting [13]. Our study indicates that the reliance on using TUG and Chair tests as a means of predicting fall risk shows limited predictive ability. In our study, simply asking a patient if they have fallen in the past year was found to be a better screening tool. CDC recommendations
Conclusions
In our study, the TUG and Chair tests, applied at the given thresholds, do not add significant additional screening performance when added to the screen already applied by the inclusion criteria (patients reporting that they had either fallen in the last year, worried about falling, or admitted that they felt unsteady when standing or walking). Additionally, there were no sex specific significant differences in TUG or Chair test screening performance. Further research to determine what might be
References (21)
- et al.
The direct costs of fatal and non-fatal falls among older adults—United States
J Safety Res
(2016) - et al.
Timed up and go test and risk of falls in older adults: a systematic review
J Nutr Health Aging
(2011 Dec) - et al.
Prevalence and risk factors for falls in older men and women: the English longitudinal study of ageing
Age Ageing
(2016) - et al.
Risk factors for falls among seniors: implications of gender
Am J Epidemiol
(2015 Apr 1) - et al.
Timed up and go test combined with self-rated multifactorial questionnaire on falls risk and sociodemographic factors predicts falls among community-dwelling older adults better than the timed up and go test on its own
J Multidiscip Healthc
(2017 Oct 26) - et al.
Gender perspectives on views and preferences of older people on exercise to prevent falls: a systematic mixed studies review
BMC Geriatr
(2017 Feb 17) Take a stand on falls
- et al.
Interventions for preventing falls in elderly people
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
(2003) - et al.
Predicting geriatric falls following an episode of emergency department care: a systematic review
Acad Emerg Med
(2014 Oct) Assessment, “Timed up and go.”
Cited by (0)
- ☆
The authors have no outside support information, conflicts or financial interest to disclose. This study, in part, was funded by an unrestricted community grant from the Ann and Carl Anderson Trust and this work has been presented, in part, as an abstract at the 2017 IGM Congress in Sendai, Japan.
Authors would like to acknowledge the research operations management of Anita Kurt, PhD, RN, the team member assistance for screening, enrolling, coordinating, and or phone follow-up of Tyler M. Adams, BS, Steven J. Berk, DO, Vartika Bhardwaj, MD, Tracy M. Bishop, DO, Ryan Day, MD, Danielle Mills, MD, Bernadette Glenn-Porter, BS, Shaye M. Glovas, BS, Victoria Goodheart, DO, Michael Goodwin, MD, Kyli N. Krape, DO, Stephanie S. Merrick, MD, Kayley J. Miller, MSPAS, PA-C, Elizabeth C. Moore, DO, Sofia M. Murillo, BS, Samantha L. Myles BSN, RN, Cameron Paterson, MD, Todd Remaley, DO, Rolando E. Rios, MD, Lauren E. Semler, MS, MSPAS, PA-C, Ryan M. Surmaitis, DO, Kara Mia Villanueva, MS, Michael Wagner, DO, Deirdre Warner, DO, Adison Weseloh, MD, Alexander Youngdahl, DO, and Phillip Zegelbone, MD.