Direct comparison
Fall Risk Assessment Tools Compared
Morse, Hendrich II, JHFRAT and STRATIFY fall-risk scales compared: item count, scoring speed, risk cutoffs, and which setting each actually fits.
Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Ask CASRAI · included with Regulatory Radar
Ask about Fall Risk Assessment Tools Compared
Ask CASRAI answers research-administration questions and cites the passages behind every claim — and says so when the corpus does not cover something, instead of guessing. It comes with a Regulatory Radar subscription at $29 a month, alongside the daily digest of regulatory changes and the dashboard of what changed.
150 questions a day, on this site, over the API, or inside your own tools through the CASRAI MCP server.
Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.
How do Morse Fall Scale, Hendrich II, JHFRAT, STRATIFY compare side by side?
The table below compares Morse Fall Scale, Hendrich II, JHFRAT, STRATIFY across 6 procurement-relevant dimensions, from originator / year through known limitation.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Morse Fall Scale | Hendrich II | JHFRAT | STRATIFY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Originator / year | Janice Morse and colleagues, 1989 — first validated in a Canadian acute-care hospital. | Ann Hendrich and colleagues, published 2003 (Applied Nursing Research), derived from a large US case-control study. | Developed by nursing and patient-safety staff at Johns Hopkins Hospital; adopted well beyond Johns Hopkins itself. | Oliver and colleagues, 1997 — St Thomas's Hospital, London. |
| Item count | 6 items: history of falling, secondary diagnosis, ambulatory aid, IV/heparin lock, gait, mental status. | 8 risk factors plus a functional test: confusion/disorientation/impulsivity, symptomatic depression, altered elimination, dizziness/vertigo, male gender, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, and the Get-Up-and-Go test. | 7 domains: age, fall history, elimination, medications, patient-care equipment (lines/drains/tubes), mobility, and cognition. | 5 items: fall history or fell on admission, agitation, visual impairment, frequent-toileting need, and a transfer-and-mobility score. |
| Scoring speed at the bedside | About 3 minutes; scored 0-125. | About 2-3 minutes; fewer items and a quick functional test keep it fast. | About 3-5 minutes; more domains to review, though it's often built directly into an EHR fall-risk flowsheet, which offsets some of that time. | About 2 minutes — the shortest of the four. |
| Risk-tier cutoff | Commonly implemented as 0-24 low, 25-44 moderate, 45+ high — the exact bands are set by the adopting institution/EHR build, not fixed by the original 1989 instrument. | A total score of 5 or more is the standard high-risk threshold. | Banded low/moderate/high; the exact point ranges are set by the version each hospital licenses and implements, so confirm the cutoffs in your own organization's build rather than assuming a universal number. | A score of 2 or more flags high risk on the original 0-5 scale. |
| Best-fit setting | US acute-care med-surg units — the most widely deployed baseline tool in American hospitals. | Acute care; validated across a large, multi-site case-control population. | Acute-care nursing units; typically deployed with a matched, tier-specific intervention protocol rather than as a standalone score. | Long-term-care and elderly-inpatient populations, following its origin in a UK geriatric/rehabilitation ward — less common in a fast-turnover ED. |
| Known limitation | Doesn't directly assess sensory deficits or medication-related fall risk — AHRQ guidance recommends pairing it with a supplemental screen (e.g. a medication review or STRATIFY) rather than relying on Morse alone. | Male gender as a scored risk factor draws periodic clinical debate; screens only two medication classes (antiepileptics, benzodiazepines), not medications broadly. | The equipment item means a patient tethered to IV lines, drains or tubes can score higher purely from that equipment, independent of underlying mobility or cognitive fall risk. | Developed and validated outside the US in an older population; item wording (e.g. the transfer-and-mobility score) needs local calibration before use in a general US acute-care unit. |
Common questions
Common questions about Morse Fall Scale vs Hendrich II vs JHFRAT vs STRATIFY
Can more than one fall-risk tool be used at the same time?
+
Yes, in the sense of pairing rather than duplicating. AHRQ's own guidance on the Morse Fall Scale recommends pairing a base tool with a supplemental screen — for example, a medication-risk review — to cover gaps like sensory or medication-related risk that none of Morse, Hendrich II, JHFRAT or STRATIFY directly scores. Running two full overlapping instruments side by side isn't standard practice; adding a targeted supplemental screen to one base tool is.
Is STRATIFY validated for US hospitals?
+
STRATIFY was developed and validated in a UK geriatric/rehabilitation ward population (Oliver et al., 1997). It's used in some US long-term-care and elderly-inpatient settings, but Morse, Hendrich II and JHFRAT all have a deeper validation history specifically in US acute-care hospitals.
Why does JHFRAT score patients with IV lines or drains higher?
+
JHFRAT scores patient-care equipment — IV lines, drains, catheters and tubes — as its own domain, on the reasoning that tethering equipment itself raises fall risk (a patient can trip on a line or attempt to move despite being tethered). Two patients with identical mobility and cognition can land in different risk tiers purely based on what's currently attached to them.
Which tool is fastest to complete at the bedside?
+
STRATIFY (5 items, about 2 minutes) and Hendrich II (8 factors plus a brief functional test, about 2-3 minutes) are generally the quickest. Morse (6 items, about 3 minutes) and JHFRAT (7 broader domains, about 3-5 minutes) take a little longer, though JHFRAT is often embedded directly in an EHR flowsheet, which offsets some of that time in practice.
