Author, date and country | Patient group | Study type (level of evidence) | Outcomes | Key results | Study Weaknesses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Huey-Ming Tzeng 2015 USA | 560 staff participants; 5 US healthcare systems; 68 Study units; 10 specialty areas | Study Design: A multihospital survey: Across 5 US hospitals (July 2011 – February 2012) Aim: To identify perceived top 10 highly effective falls prevention measures by specialty in acute hospitals | Effective Interventions | Perceived most effective to least effective: 1. Low positioned bed; locked bed brakes; Mental state assessment; 2. Transparency of falls & related injuries shared across units. ; 3. 1-1 support when in toilet; 4. Maintain call light within reach; Bedrails up; 5. Non-slip footwear; 6. Use of sitter; complete risk assessment once a shift; de-cluttering; 7. Standardized patient education; toileting regime; Patient to demonstrate call light use; Availability of bedside commode; Increased observation & surveillance; A visual identification system for patient at risk of falling 8. Reduce tripping hazard 10. Use of patient’s routine assistive device | Survey. Low response rate (25.81%). Perceived effective measures without statistical collaboration. Not validated in ED/CDU. |
Alexander D 2013 | Falls as reason for presentation; Age > 70; altered mental status; impaired mobility; nursing judgment of falls risk | Study Design: Introduction of new intervention Aim: Introduction of falls risk assessment tool at triage for early identification & intervention | Introduction of KINDER 1 falls risk assessment tool | Suggested to be useful, however not validated yet. | Interventional study in early stages of implementation; Insufficient data to validate its outcome or usefulness Age specific Falls assessment tool based on questions that are normally asked in our ED No preventive interventions |
Terry P Haines 2013 Australia | 1206 Patients; acute and rehabilitation inpatients. Inclusion: Age > 60 years; Admissions to cute wards (orthopedic, respiratory medicine, general medicine); Admissions to sub-acute wards (geriatric assessment & rehabilitation; neurological rehabilitation); Cognitively intact (SPMSQ score >8) compared to cognitively impaired subgroup analysis | Study Design: Economic evaluation from a multicenter randomized control trial Aim: Identify circumstances where patient education may be cost-effective in falls prevention | If the proportion of cognitively intact patients falling on the wards is 4% greater than that of the cognitively impaired, the provision of a complete program is likely to be effective | Age specific; Non-ED setting; Intensive multimedia program – questionable applicability to ED; Required additional human resources and time to carry out the program – questionable feasibility to ED setting; Does not take into account patients with transient impaired cognition patients in the acute setting | |
J Coussemen 2008 | 3948 Patients; 8 studies: Based in geriatric & rehabilitation units; single acute geriatric/rehabilitation units | Study Design: Systematic review & Metanalysis ; 1996-2001 Aim: Evaluate effectiveness of falls prevention interventions in acute & non-acute hospitals Interventions: Variety of interventions: Vitamin D supplements; Identity bracelets; Carpeted floors; Bed alarms; Education; Physiotherapy; Falls alert signs; Medication review; Eyesight Review | No evidence of effectiveness of falls prevention interventions identified | Heterogeneity of patient population; No specific interventions tested; No focus on ED -only 1 of 8 studies focused on acute admissions (but medical and rehab only); Heterogeneity of interventions, trials included range from single intervention to 2 or more. | |
S Gates 2008 United Kingdom | 6397 patients; Study Populations: all studies focus on patients aged > 65 years | Study Design: Systematic Review & Metanalysis (till March 2007); Studies included: 6 in ED; 13 in non-ED settings Aims: (1) Assessment of risk factors for falling; (2) Treatments to address these risk factors Interventions: Drugs; Environment; Assistive devices; Knowledge; Exercise (supervised/ and unsupervised); Referral | Non-specific vague management | Mean quality score of study 23.8; Clinically diverse trials; Age specific (>65 years); Heterogeneity of assessment criteria; While 6 studies recruited patient from ED, none of the assessments/interventions were carried out in the ED; Heterogeneity of patient characteristics ;Tedious assessment methodology; Non-specific vague management |