# A Managerial Approach to Investigate Fall Risk in a Rehabilitation Hospital
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Categories** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **without** \\ **Recurrences** \\ **(n = 200)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **with** \\ **Recurrences** \\ **(n = 38)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Hour of fall, n [\%]} & Morning & 86 [43.0] & 14 [36.8] & \\  & Night & 36 [18.0] & 8 [21.1] & \\  & Afternoon & 48 [24.0] & 9 [23.7] & \\  & Evening & 30 [15.0] & 7 [18.4] & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Location, n [\%]} & Elevator & 1 [0.5] & 1 [2.6] & \\  & Bathroom & 30 [15.0] & 2 [5.3] & \\  & Room & 148 [74.0] & 34 [89.5] & \\  & Corridor & 9 [4.5] & 0 [0.0] & \\  & Outdoors & 3 [1.5] & 0 [0.0] & \\  & Gym & 3 [1.5] & 0 [0.0] & \\  & Waiting room & 5 [2.5] & 0 [0.0] & \\  & Other & 1 [0.5] & 1 [2.6] & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Mechanism, n [\%]} & Tripped & 17 [8.5] & 2 [5.3] & \\  & Loss of consciousness & 6 [3.0] & 0 [0.0] & \\  & Loss of balance & 52 [26.0] & 7 [18.4] & \\  & Loss of strength & 26 [13.0] & 3 [7.9] & \\  & Slipped & 70 [35.0] & 11 [28.9] & \\  & Others & 29 [14.5] & 15 [39.5] & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Dynamic, n [\%]} & Waiting in wheelchair & 6 [3.0] & 1 [2.6] & \\  & Falling from bed & 4 [2.0] & 2 [5.3] & \\  & while sleeping & 15 [7.5] & 0 [0.0] & \\  & During assisted movements & 8 [4.0] & 0 [0.0] & \\  & During personal cleaning & 8 [4.0] & 1 [2.6] & \\  & While dressing up & 4 [2.0] & 0 [0.0] & \\  & Not available & 16 [8.0] & 4 [10.6] & \\  & While picking up items & 7 [3.5] & 0 [0.0] & \\  & While getting in/out of bed & 52 [26.0] & 8 [21.1] & \\  & While getting in/out of the & 49 [24.5] & 11 [28.9] & \\  & While removing restrains aids & 2 [1.0] & 1 [2.6] & \\  & Other & 29 [14.5] & 10 [26.3] & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Clinical impact, n [\%]} & With injury & 69 [34.5] & 13 [34.2] & \\  & Without apparent injury & 131 [65.5] & 25 [65.8] & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Contusions, n [\%]} & Yes & 24 [12.0] & 3 [7.9] & \\  & No & 176 [88.0] & 35 [92.1] & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Distortions, n [\%]} & Yes & 1 [0.5] & 0 [0.0] & \\  & No & 199 [99.5] & 38 [100.0] & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Hematoma, n [\%]} & Yes & 6 [3.0] & 0 [0.0] & \\  & No & 194 [97.0] & 38 [100.0] & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Excoriation, n [\%]} & Yes & 22 [11.0] & 3 [7.9] & \\  & No & 178 [89.0] & 35 [92.1] & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Wounds, n [\%]} & Yes & 9 [4.5] & 2 [5.3] & \\  & No & 191 [95.5] & 36 [94.7] & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Fractures, n [\%]} & Yes & 7 [3.5] & 2 [5.3] & \\  & No & 193 [96.5] & 36 [94.7] & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Head trauma, n [\%]} & Yes & 17 [8.5] & 2 [5.3] & \\  & No & 183 [91.5] & 36 [94.7] & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{No injuries, n [\%]} & Yes & 20 [10.0] & 6 [15.8] & \\  & No & 180 [90.0] & 32 [84.2] & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._The statistical analyses revealed that the Morse scores between the two populations were statistically significant (32.5 \(\pm\) 17.0 versus 53.3 \(\pm\) 22.1); moreover, the Stratify scores equal or greater to two increased from about 25% (Table 2) to more than 75% in the case of the patients who experienced multiple falls (Table 3). This result also implies that the number of preventive personalized measures increased by about 10% when considering multiple falls. Tables 2 and 3 also show statistical differences regarding the state of consciousness; indeed, 91.0% of the patients who fell once were vigilant (about 87.8% when also considering the first fall of the remaining 38 patients, as shown in Table 2), while for those who fell more times, only 65.0% were vigilant. The results were also more significant for the patients' psychomotor agitation (21.1%) and confusion (13.2%). Tables 2 and 3 also reveal that the administration of antidepressants proved an important predictive value for patients who fell more than once; indeed, 34.2% of those patients took them.