Introduction: Emergency Department (ED) fall risk screening has been newly implemented in Alberta based on Accreditation Canada requirements. Two existing inpatient tools failed to include certain ED risk conditions. One tool graded unconsciousness as no risk for falling, and neither considered intoxication or sedation. This led to the development of a new fall risk management screening tool, the FRM (Tool1). This study compared Tool1 with inpatient utilized Schmid Fall Risk Assessment Tool (Tool2) and the validated Hendrich II Fall Risk Model (Tool3). Methods: Patients (≥17 years old) in a tertiary care adult ED with any of the following; history of falling in the last 12 months, elderly/frail, incontinence, impaired gait, mobility assist device, confusion/disorientation, procedural sedation, intoxication/sedated, or unconscious were included. Forms were randomized to score patients using different paired screening tools: Tool1 paired with either Tool2 or Tool3. Percent agreement (PA) between the tools based on identification of a patient at either risk/no risk for falling; higher PA indicating more tool homogeneity. Results: A total of 928 screening forms were completed within our 8-week study period; 452 and 443 comparing Tool1 to Tool2 and Tool1 to Tool3, respectively. Thirty-two forms included only Tool1 scores, excluding them from comparative analysis. The average patient age (n=895) was 64.8±21.4 years. Tool1 identified 66.4% of patients at risk, whereas Tool2 and Tool3 identified only 19.2% and 31.4%, respectively. Tool1 and 2 had a PA of 50.2%, whereas Tool1 and Tool3 had a PA of 65.9%. Conclusion: The FRM tool had higher agreement with the validated assessment tool, identifying patients at risk for falling but better identified patients presenting with intoxication, need for procedural sedation and unconsciousness. The other tools generally miss these common ED conditions, putting these patients at risk. Validation and reliability assessments of the FRM tool are warranted.