Comparison
Able Assess vs paper-based falls assessments.
Objective, standardized, five minutes. Everything paper cannot do.
Head-to-head comparison
Paper assessments like Morse and Tinetti take 20+ minutes, are scored subjectively by observation, vary from clinician to clinician and rarely make it into the care plan. Able Assess runs in under five minutes, scores automatically against normative data, delivers the same result regardless of who runs it and routes risk banding straight to the care team.
Feature
Able Assess
Paper Assessments (Morse, Tinetti)
Speed
Under 5 minutes per screening
20-30 minutes per screening
Accuracy
Four objective, sensor-based metrics scored against normative data
Subjective observation scored by individual clinician judgment
Consistency
One standardized protocol across every site and every staff member
Varies by clinician, branch and time of day
Staff requirements
Any staff member, no clinical certification required
Requires trained clinical staff
Data capture
Automatic digital capture with longitudinal trending
Paper forms, manual transcription, no trend data
Care plan integration
Automated risk banding routed to the care team
Manual handoff, often lost in transit
Payer defensibility
Objective data trail for HHVBP, VBP and regulatory reporting
No standardized data trail
Scalability
Roll out to every branch with minimal training
Requires clinical training at every site
Why objectivity matters
Multifactorial falls risk screening outperforms single-test paper approaches in predicting falls in older adults.
— BMJ, 2018