4.0 Article

FIRST RESULTS OF EVALUATION OF A FALLS CLINIC

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERONTOLOGY
Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages 130-136

Publisher

ELSEVIER TAIWAN
DOI: 10.1016/S1873-9598(10)70036-3

Keywords

accidental falls; aged; gait; postural balance; prevention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A falls clinic was established at the Waldkrankenhaus St. Marien, Erlangen, Germany. Risk factors for falls in community dwelling elderly adults were assessed and targeted interventions were recommended. Methods: The assessment consisted of patient history, physical examination, evaluation of medication intake, clinical gait assessment, and static posturography and electronic gait analysis. The results of the first 61 assessments are reported in this study. Results: Forty-two participants reported at least one fall in the last 6 months, with half reporting multiple falls. Gait impairments were discovered in 32 participants. Eight participants were diagnosed to suffer from a fall disease (recurring falls during the past 12 months), while nine participants were diagnosed with a fall syndrome (recurring falls during the past 12 months leading to severe injuries). A significant difference between fallers and nonfallers (p < 0.05) was discovered during the patient history and balance assessment using static posturography (p < 0.05). The participants received medical advice, recommendations for individually targeted interventions, and suggestions to see other specialists. Compared to an age-matched local population, our sample showed a higher prevalence of falls. Conclusion: The results showed that a high-risk population attended our falls clinic. We presume that the falls clinic will have a beneficial effect in reducing the prevalence of falls in a high-risk population. Further studies are necessary to test this hypothesis. [International Journal of Gerontology 2010; 4(3): 130-136]

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available