|
|
Berg Balance
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Berg Balance - July 11, 2007 9:51:59 PM
|
|
|
Ahlecs76
Posts: 33
Joined: March 16, 2005
Status: offline
|
Anybody knows how to interpret Berg Balance Scores in relation to fall risks? I use the test and I know the higher you score the less your risk for falls but is there any numerical value as a score that would predict your risk to lets say minimal, moderate. or maximum risk? I would appreciate any information regarding this matter. Much Thanks! alex
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Berg Balance - July 12, 2007 8:02:03 AM
|
|
|
jma
Posts: 2301
Joined: August 24, 2000
From: NY
Status: offline
|
The only thing I can remember is that a score less than 45 out of the total score of 56 indicates an increased risk for falls. I believe the Tinetti score breaks it down a little better. A tinetti score less than 19 inidcates a high risk and a score between 19-24, indicates a moderate risk for falls.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Berg Balance - July 12, 2007 4:20:45 PM
|
|
|
Ahlecs76
Posts: 33
Joined: March 16, 2005
Status: offline
|
Thanks jma! I believe the Berg is a little bit more easier to administer but lemme check on Tinetti as well! Appreciate the information you shared..Alex
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Berg Balance - July 14, 2007 9:54:38 AM
|
|
|
jlharris
Posts: 465
Joined: April 12, 2006
From: Nebraska
Status: offline
|
Predictive
One hundred and thirteen elderly were followed for 12 months, and were classified as having 0,
1, =>2 falls during that time. A Berg Balance Scale of <45 was predictive of multiple falls.
For higher functioning pts (and for other populations with ambulation concerns) you might consider the Dynamic Gait Index. Very nice, easily administered and scored tool.
_____________________________
Jason L. Harris, PT, DPT
My PT Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Berg Balance - July 22, 2007 12:01:59 PM
|
|
|
jma
Posts: 2301
Joined: August 24, 2000
From: NY
Status: offline
|
FYI. Found a copy of a BERG I had, which actually had numbers on it:
<= 36: 100% Risk for falls
<= 42: 96% Risk for falls
<= 45: 70% Risk for falls
<= 48: 50% Mod Risk for falls
<= 50: 30% Risk for falls
<= 56: 10% Low risk for falls
I think someone went to a course and these were included in the handouts they were given. Hope this info helps.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Berg Balance - July 22, 2007 4:36:56 PM
|
|
|
Ahlecs76
Posts: 33
Joined: March 16, 2005
Status: offline
|
Wow! That was very useful information! Thanks once again jma!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Berg Balance - September 21, 2007 10:10:31 PM
|
|
|
blast7
Posts: 93
Joined: July 28, 2005
Status: offline
|
Just a side note, the Tinetti is easier and quicker to perform and rates comparably to the BBS.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Berg Balance - September 22, 2007 6:07:55 PM
|
|
|
SJBird55
Posts: 2242
Joined: May 10, 2004
From: Michigan
Status: online
|
No, the final scores of the Tinetti and the Berg are not comparable. The Tinetti doesn't challenge balance as much as the Berg. The Tinetti is a nice option for those with low functional levels. The Berg is more well-rounded (if that is the right term) or more thorough in providing a picture on ability to control center of gravity in a variety of functional tests. The Berg seems very appropriate for independent community dwelling elderly. I've put the two tools head to head and the Tinetti doesn't pick up problematic areas for independent community dwelling elderly as well as the Berg. The Tinetti seems to have a ceiling effect, in my experience. Yes, the Tinetti quick and easy (from a time perspective) but if it does have ceiling effects with a certain population, is it the best tool to use?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.094
|
Printable Version
