Protocol for the SAFEST review: the Shock-Absorbing Flooring Effectiveness SysTematic review including older adults and staff in hospitals and care homes

Shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injury prevention in older adults and staff in hospitals and care homes: the SAFEST systematic review

BACKGROUND

Injurious falls in hospitals and care homes are a life-limiting and costly international issue. Shock-absorbing flooring may offer part of the solution; however, evidence is required to inform decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injury prevention among older adults in care settings.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of experimental, observational, qualitative and economic studies evaluating flooring in care settings targeting older adults and/or staff. Studies identified by a scoping review (inception to May 2016) were screened, and the search of MEDLINE, AgeLine and Scopus (to September 2019) was updated, alongside other sources. Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias in duplicate (using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tool, or the Joanna Briggs Institute's qualitative tool).

RESULTS

Of the 22 included studies, 20 assessed the outcomes (three randomised controlled trials; and seven observational, five qualitative and five economic studies) on novel floors (n = 12), sports floors (n = 5), carpet (n = 5) and wooden subfloors (n = 1). Quantitative data related to 11,857 patient/resident falls (nine studies) and 163 staff injuries (one study). Qualitative studies included patients/residents (n = 20), visitors (n = 8) and staff (n = 119). Hospital-based randomised controlled trial data were too imprecise; however, very low-quality evidence indicated that novel/sports flooring reduced injurious falls from three per 1000 patients per day on vinyl with concrete subfloors to two per 1000 patients per day (rate ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.84; two studies), without increasing falls rates (two studies). One care home-based randomised controlled trial found that a novel underlay produces similar injurious falls rates (high-quality evidence) and falls rates (moderate-quality evidence) to those of a plywood underlay with vinyl overlays and concrete subfloors. Very low-quality data demonstrated that, compared with rigid floors, novel/sports flooring reduced the number of falls resulting in injury in care homes (26.4% vs. 33.0%; risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.91; three studies) and hospitals (27.1% vs. 42.4%; risk ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.93; two studies). Fracture and head injury outcomes were imprecise; however, hip fractures reduced from 30 per 1000 falls on concrete to 18 per 1000 falls on wooden subfloors in care homes (odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.78; one study; very low-quality evidence). Four low-quality economic studies concluded that shock-absorbing flooring reduced costs and improved outcomes (three studies), or increased costs and improved outcomes (one study). One, more robust, study estimated that shock-absorbing flooring resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years and lower costs, if the number of falls increased on shock-absorbing floors, but that shock-absorbing flooring would be a dominant economic strategy if the number of falls remained the same. Staff found moving wheeled equipment more difficult on shock-absorbing floors, leading to workplace adaptations. Staff injuries were observed; however, very low-quality evidence suggests that these are no less frequent on rigid floors.

LIMITATIONS

Evidence favouring shock-absorbing flooring is of very low quality; thus, much uncertainty remains.

CONCLUSIONS

Robust evidence is lacking in hospitals and indicates that one novel floor may not be effective in care homes. Very low-quality evidence indicates that shock-absorbing floors may be beneficial; however, wider workplace implications need to be addressed. Work is required to establish a core outcome set, and future research needs to more comprehensively deal with confounding and the paucity of hospital-based studies, and better plan for workplace adaptations in the study design.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019118834.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The SAFEST review: a mixed methods systematic review of shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injury prevention

BACKGROUND

Shock-absorbing flooring may minimise impact forces incurred from falls to reduce fall-related injuries; however, synthesized evidence is required to inform decision-making in hospitals and care homes.

METHODS

This is a Health Technology Assessment mixed methods systematic review of flooring interventions targeting older adults and staff in care settings. Our search incorporated the findings from a previous scoping review, MEDLINE, AgeLine, and Scopus (to September 2019) and other sources. Two independent reviewers selected, assessed, and extracted data from studies. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute tools, undertook meta-analyses, and meta-aggregation.

RESULTS

20 of 22 included studies assessed our outcomes (3 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs); 7 observational; 5 qualitative; 5 economic), on novel floors (N = 12), sports floors (N = 5), carpet (N = 5), and wooden sub-floors (N = 1). Quantitative data related to 11,857 patient falls (9 studies), and 163 staff injuries (1 study). One care home-based RCT found a novel underlay produced similar injurious falls rates (high-quality evidence) and falls rates (moderate-quality evidence) to a plywood underlay with vinyl overlay and concrete sub-floors. Very low-quality evidence suggested that shock-absorbing flooring may reduce injuries in hospitals (Rate Ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84, 2 studies; 27.1% vs. 42.4%; Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.93, 2 studies) and care homes (26.4% vs. 33.0%; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.91, 3 studies), without increasing falls. Economic evidence indicated that if injuries are fewer and falls not increased, then shock-absorbing flooring would be a dominant strategy. Fracture outcomes were imprecise; however, hip fractures reduced from 30 in 1000 falls on concrete to 18 in 1000 falls on wooden sub-floors (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.78; one study; very low-quality evidence). Staff found moving wheeled equipment harder on shock-absorbing floors leading to workplace adaptations. Very low-quality evidence suggests staff injuries were no less frequent on rigid floors.

CONCLUSION

Evidence favouring shock-absorbing flooring is uncertain and of very low quality. Robust research following a core outcome set is required, with attention to wider staff workplace implications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019118834 .

A comparison of floor surfaces for injury prevention in care settings: impact forces and horizontal pulling force required to move wheeled equipment

Shock-absorbing flooring is one potential solution to prevent fall-related injuries. No standards exist to characterize shock-absorbing healthcare flooring. This study explores two mechanical tests for impact force reduction and horizontal force required to move wheeled objects. An appropriately designed rubber underlay can reduce peak impact by 25% compared with 1% with standard vinyl.

INTRODUCTION

Severe falls often occur in hospitals and care homes. Shock-absorbing flooring is one potential solution to prevent fall-related injuries; however, no standards exist for characterizing flooring as an injury prevention measure. Shock-absorbing flooring use in high-risk settings may influence both patients (injury-saving potential) and staff (manoeuvring equipment). We aimed to explore two tests to characterize floors, to determine shock absorbency and horizontal pulling force required to move wheeled objects.

METHODS

Mechanical testing was performed according to the Canadian Standards Association Z325 Hip Protectors document. This test was developed for hip protectors but is applicable to compliant surfaces that form part of the floor. Tests were performed on commercially available floor materials (suitable for care settings) to assess the force required to initiate movement of a wheeled object across the floor. We explored the relationships between horizontal force required to pull wheeled objects, impact force, floor thickness, and core material.

RESULTS

Considerable differences were identified between floor samples in their ability to reduce the peak impact force (range 0.7-25%). A peak force reduction of up to 25% can be achieved with a specially designed rubber underlay. Horizontal pulling force increased with floor thickness but was lower for rubber floors. There was no direct relationship between impact attenuation and horizontal pulling force. Whilst thickness and core material explain some variations (66.5% for wheel movement; 82.3% for impact), other unmeasured factors clearly influence floor performance.

CONCLUSIONS

These results can inform the development of flooring and the establishment of standards needed to underpin practice, research, and development in this field.

Protocol for the SAFEST review: the Shock-Absorbing Flooring Effectiveness SysTematic review including older adults and staff in hospitals and care homes

INTRODUCTION

Falls in hospitals and care homes are a major issue of international concern. Inpatient falls are the most commonly reported safety incident in the UK's National Health Service (NHS), costing the NHS £630 million a year. Injurious falls are particularly life-limiting and costly. There is a growing body of evidence on shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injury prevention; however, no systematic review exists to inform practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will systematically identify, appraise and summarise studies investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness, and experiences of shock-absorbing flooring in hospitals and care homes. Our search will build on an extensive search conducted by a scoping review (inception to May 2016). We will search electronic databases (AgeLine, CINAHL, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Scopus and Web of Science; May 2016-present), trial registries and grey literature. We will conduct backward and forward citation searches of included studies, and liaise with study researchers. We will evaluate the influence of floors on fall-related injuries, falls and staff work-related injuries through randomised and non-randomised studies, consider economic and qualitative evidence, and implementation factors. We will consider risk of bias, assess heterogeneity and explore potential effect modifiers via subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses. Where appropriate we will combine studies through meta-analysis. We will use the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach to evaluate the quality of evidence and present the results using summary of findings tables, and adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We will follow the ethical principles of systematic review conduct, by attending to publication ethics, transparency and rigour. Our dissemination plan includes peer-reviewed publication, presentations, press release, stakeholder symposium, patient video and targeted knowledge-to-action reports. This review will inform decision-making around falls management in care settings and identify important directions for future research.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019118834.