Does a high UV environment ensure adequate vitamin D status?

This study assesses the Vitamin D status of 126 healthy free-living adults aged 18–87 years, in southeast Queensland, Australia (27°S) at the end of the 2006 winter. Participants provided blood samples for analysis of 25(OH)D (the measure of an individual’s Vitamin D status), PTH, Calcium, Phosphate, and Albumin, completed a questionnaire on sun-protective/sun-exposure behaviours, and were assessed for phenotypic characteristics such as skin/hair/eye colour and BMI. We found that 10.2% of the participants had serum 25(OH)D levels below 25 nmol/l (considered deficient) and a further 32.3% had levels between 25 nmol/l and 50 nmol/l (considered insufficient). Our results show that low levels of 25(OH)D can occur in a substantial proportion of the population at the end of winter, even in a sunny climate. 25(OH)D levels were higher amongst those who spent more time in the sun and lower among obese participants (BMI > 30) than those who were not obese (BMI < 30). 25(OH)D levels were also lower in participants who had black hair, dark/olive skin, or brown eyes, when compared with participants who had brown or fair hair, fair skin, or blue/green eyes. No associations were found between 25(OH)D status and age, gender, smoking status, or the use of sunscreen.

The STRATIFY tool and clinical judgment were poor predictors of falling in an acute hospital setting

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the STRATIFY falls tool with nurses’ clinical judgments in predicting patient falls. Study Design and Setting: A prospective cohort study was conducted among the inpatients of an acute tertiary hospital. Participants were patients over 65 years of age admitted to any hospital unit. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) of the instrument and nurses’ clinical judgments in predicting falls were calculated. Results: Seven hundred and eighty-eight patients were screened and followed up during the study period. The fall prevalence was 9.2%. Of the 335 patients classified as being ‘‘at risk’’ for falling using the STRATIFY tool, 59 (17.6%) did sustain a fall (sensitivity50.82, specificity50.61, PPV50.18, NPV50.97). Nurses judged that 501 patients were at risk of falling and, of these, 60 (12.0%) fell (sensitivity50.84, specificity50.38, PPV50.12, NPV50.96). The STRATIFY tool correctly identified significantly more patients as either fallers or nonfallers than the nurses (P50.027). Conclusion: Considering the poor specificity and high rates of false-positive results for both the STRATIFY tool and nurses’ clinical judgments, we conclude that neither of these approaches are useful for screening of falls in acute hospital settings.