Table 1.
Results of the Univariate Analysis of Patient Characteristics as Risk Factors for Falls
| Characteristic | Cases n = 226 (%) |
Controls n = 678 (%) |
OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (female) | 103 (45.6) | 355 (52.4) | 0.76 (0.56 – 1.03) |
| Age, mean (SD) | 61.5 (15.5) | 59.7 (17.4) | 1.01 (0.99 – 1.02) |
| BMI | |||
| Normal (18.5 – 24.9) | 61 (26.9) | 222 (32.7) | 1[Reference] |
| Underweight (≤18.5) | 22 (9.7) | 31 (4.6) | 2.58 (1.40 – 4.78) |
| Overweight (25.0 – 29.9) | 68 (30.1) | 197 (29.1) | 1.26 (0.85 – 1.87) |
| Obese (≥30) | 73 (32.3) | 218 (32.3) | 1.22 (0.83 – 1.80) |
| History of falls | 75 (33.2) | 76 (11.2) | 3.93 (2.73 – 5.67) |
| Fall was reason for admission | 15 (6.6) | 18 (2.7) | 2.65 (1.31 – 5.34) |
| Gait | |||
| Normal | 28 (12.4) | 186 (27.4) | 1[Reference] |
| Weak or impaired | 160 (70.8) | 350 (51.6) | 1.49 (1.21 – 1.83) |
| Unable to assess | 38 (16.8) | 142 (20.9) | 1.78 (1.04 – 3.04) |
| Ambulation | |||
| No assistance needed | 36 (15.9) | 230 (33.9) | 1[Reference] |
| Bedrest | 43 (19.0) | 148 (21.8) | 1.86 (1.14 – 3.03) |
| Assistive device | 16 (7.1) | 34 (5.0) | 3.01 (1.51 – 6.00) |
| Person assistance | 131 (58.0) | 266 (39.2) | 3.15 (2.09 – 4.74) |
| Incontinence | 61 (27.0) | 108 (15.9) | 1.95 (1.36 – 2.79) |
| Urinary catheter | 77 (34.1) | 242 (35.7) | 0.93 (0.68 – 1.27) |
| Hearing impairmenta | 13 (5.8) | 29 (4.3) | 1.40 (0.71 – 2.75) |
| Glassesb | 114 (50.4) | 330 (48.7) | 1.17 (0.83 – 1.66) |
| Neuropathy | 8 (3.5) | 30 (4.4) | 0.80 (0.36 – 1.76) |
| Syncope | 14 (6.2) | 20 (2.9) | 2.17 (1.08 – 4.38) |
| Dizziness | 20 (8.8) | 29 (4.3) | 2.17 (1.20 – 3.92) |
| Overestimates ability | 73 (32.3) | 99 (14.7) | 2.77 (1.95 – 3.93) |
| Estimate of the time (confusion) | |||
| Correct | 146 (64.6) | 554 (81.7) | 1[Reference] |
| Incorrect | 55 (24.3) | 52 (7.7) | 4.01 (2.64 – 6.11) |
| Unable to answer | 25 (10.6) | 69 (10.2) | 1.32 (0.80 – 2.17) |
| High risk for fallsc | 143 (63.3) | 284 (41.9) | 2.39 (1.75 – 3.26) |
Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval
a
Data was missing for 42 (18.6%) cases and 116 (17.1%) controls.
b
Data was missing for 44 (19.5%) cases and 117 (17.3%) controls.
c
Risk determined by a nursing falls risk assessment that evaluated history of falls, weak or impaired gait, need for assistance with ambulation, overestimating one’s ability, and inability to correctly estimate the time. Risk was considered “low” if the patient had less than three affirmative answers and “high” if the patient had three or more.