1
|
Randell R, McVey L, Wright J, Zaman H, Cheong VL, Woodcock DM, Healey F, Dowding D, Gardner P, Hardiker NR, Lynch A, Todd C, Davey C, Alvarado N. Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation. Health Soc Care Deliv Res 2024; 12:1-194. [PMID: 38511977 DOI: 10.3310/jwqc5771] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/22/2024]
Abstract
Background Falls are the most common safety incident reported by acute hospitals. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommends multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions, but implementation is variable. Aim To determine how and in what contexts multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions are used in acute National Health Service hospitals in England. Design Realist review and multisite case study. (1) Systematic searches to identify stakeholders' theories, tested using empirical data from primary studies. Review of falls prevention policies of acute Trusts. (2) Theory testing and refinement through observation, staff interviews (n = 50), patient and carer interviews (n = 31) and record review (n = 60). Setting Three Trusts, one orthopaedic and one older person ward in each. Results Seventy-eight studies were used for theory construction and 50 for theory testing. Four theories were explored. (1) Leadership: wards had falls link practitioners but authority to allocate resources for falls prevention resided with senior nurses. (2) Shared responsibility: a key falls prevention strategy was patient supervision. This fell to nursing staff, constraining the extent to which responsibility for falls prevention could be shared. (3) Facilitation: assessments were consistently documented but workload pressures could reduce this to a tick-box exercise. Assessment items varied. While individual patient risk factors were identified, patients were categorised as high or low risk to determine who should receive supervision. (4) Patient participation: nursing staff lacked time to explain to patients their falls risks or how to prevent themselves from falling, although other staff could do so. Sensitive communication could prevent patients taking actions that increase their risk of falling. Limitations Within the realist review, we completed synthesis for only two theories. We could not access patient records before observations, preventing assessment of whether care plans were enacted. Conclusions (1) Leadership: There should be a clear distinction between senior nurses' roles and falls link practitioners in relation to falls prevention; (2) shared responsibility: Trusts should consider how processes and systems, including the electronic health record, can be revised to better support a multidisciplinary approach, and alternatives to patient supervision should be considered; (3) facilitation: Trusts should consider how to reduce documentation burden and avoid tick-box responses, and ensure items included in the falls risk assessment tools align with guidance. Falls risk assessment tools and falls care plans should be presented as tools to support practice, rather than something to be audited; (4) patient participation: Trusts should consider how they can ensure patients receive individualised information about risks and preventing falls and provide staff with guidance on brief but sensitive ways to talk with patients to reduce the likelihood of actions that increase their risk of falling. Future work (1) Development and evaluation of interventions to support multidisciplinary teams to undertake, and involve patients in, multifactorial falls risk assessment and selection and delivery of tailored interventions; (2) mixed method and economic evaluations of patient supervision; (3) evaluation of engagement support workers, volunteers and/or carers to support falls prevention. Research should include those with cognitive impairment and patients who do not speak English. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020184458. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129488) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Randell
- Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK
- Wolfson Centre for Applied Health Research, Bradford, UK
| | - Lynn McVey
- Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK
- Wolfson Centre for Applied Health Research, Bradford, UK
| | - Judy Wright
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Hadar Zaman
- Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK
| | | | | | | | - Dawn Dowding
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Peter Gardner
- Wolfson Centre for Applied Health Research, Bradford, UK
- Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK
| | - Nicholas R Hardiker
- School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
| | - Alison Lynch
- Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Chris Todd
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Natasha Alvarado
- Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK
- Wolfson Centre for Applied Health Research, Bradford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Logan PA, Horne JC, Allen F, Armstrong SJ, Clark AB, Conroy S, Darby J, Fox C, Gladman JR, Godfrey M, Gordon AL, Irvine L, Leighton P, McCartney K, Mountain G, Robertson K, Robinson K, Sach TH, Stirling S, Wilson EC, Sims EJ. A multidomain decision support tool to prevent falls in older people: the FinCH cluster RCT. Health Technol Assess 2022; 26:1-136. [PMID: 35125131 DOI: 10.3310/cwib0236] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Falls in care home residents are common, unpleasant, costly and difficult to prevent. OBJECTIVES The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Guide to Action for falls prevention in Care Homes (GtACH) programme. DESIGN A multicentre, cluster, parallel, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation. Care homes were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to the GtACH programme or usual care using a secure web-based randomisation service. Research assistants, participating residents and staff informants were blind to allocation at recruitment; research assistants were blind to allocation at follow-up. NHS Digital data were extracted blindly. SETTING Older people's care homes from 10 UK sites. PARTICIPANTS Older care home residents. INTERVENTION The GtACH programme, which includes care home staff training, systematic use of a multidomain decision support tool and implementation of falls prevention actions, compared to usual falls prevention care. OUTCOMES The primary trial outcome was the rate of falls per participating resident occurring during the 90-day period between 91 and 180 days post randomisation. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis was the cost per fall averted, and the primary outcome for the cost-utility analysis was the incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year. Secondary outcomes included the rate of falls over days 0-90 and 181-360 post randomisation, activity levels, dependency and fractures. The number of falls per resident was compared between arms using a negative binomial regression model (generalised estimating equation). RESULTS A total of 84 care homes were randomised: 39 to the GtACH arm and 45 to the control arm. A total of 1657 residents consented and provided baseline measures (mean age 85 years, 32% men). GtACH programme training was delivered to 1051 staff (71% of eligible staff) over 146 group sessions. Primary outcome data were available for 630 GtACH participants and 712 control participants. The primary outcome result showed an unadjusted incidence rate ratio of 0.57 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.71; p < 0.01) in favour of the GtACH programme. Falls rates were lower in the GtACH arm in the period 0-90 days. There were no other differences between arms in the secondary outcomes. Care home staff valued the training, systematic strategies and specialist peer support, but the incorporation of the GtACH programme documentation into routine care home practice was limited. No adverse events were recorded. The incremental cost was £20,889.42 per Dementia Specific Quality of Life-based quality-adjusted life-year and £4543.69 per quality-adjusted life-year based on the EuroQol-5 dimensions, five-level version. The mean number of falls was 1.889 (standard deviation 3.662) in the GtACH arm and 2.747 (standard deviation 7.414) in the control arm. Therefore, 0.858 falls were averted. The base-case incremental cost per fall averted was £190.62. CONCLUSION The GtACH programme significantly reduced the falls rate in the study care homes without restricting residents' activity levels or increasing their dependency, and was cost-effective at current thresholds in the NHS. FUTURE WORK Future work should include a broad implementation programme, focusing on scale and sustainability of the GtACH programme. LIMITATIONS A key limitation was the fact that care home staff were not blinded, although risk was small because of the UK statutory requirement to record falls in care homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered as ISRCTN34353836. 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. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philippa A Logan
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.,Community Rehabilitation Team, Nottingham CityCare Partnership, Nottingham, UK.,National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK.,National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
| | - Jane C Horne
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Frances Allen
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Allan B Clark
- Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.,Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Simon Conroy
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Janet Darby
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Chris Fox
- Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - John Rf Gladman
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.,National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK.,National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.,Health Care of the Elderly Directorate, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - Maureen Godfrey
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Adam L Gordon
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.,National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK.,National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.,Medical School, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK
| | - Lisa Irvine
- Centre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| | - Paul Leighton
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Karen McCartney
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Gail Mountain
- Centre for Applied Dementia Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK
| | - Kate Robertson
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Katie Robinson
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.,Health Care of the Elderly Directorate, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - Tracey H Sach
- Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Susan Stirling
- Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.,Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | | | - Erika J Sims
- Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.,Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bruce J, Hossain A, Lall R, Withers EJ, Finnegan S, Underwood M, Ji C, Bojke C, Longo R, Hulme C, Hennings S, Sheridan R, Westacott K, Ralhan S, Martin F, Davison J, Shaw F, Skelton DA, Treml J, Willett K, Lamb SE. Fall prevention interventions in primary care to reduce fractures and falls in people aged 70 years and over: the PreFIT three-arm cluster RCT. Health Technol Assess 2021; 25:1-114. [PMID: 34075875 DOI: 10.3310/hta25340] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Falls and fractures are a major problem. OBJECTIVES To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative falls prevention interventions. DESIGN Three-arm, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with parallel economic analysis. The unit of randomisation was the general practice. SETTING Primary care. PARTICIPANTS People aged ≥ 70 years. INTERVENTIONS All practices posted an advice leaflet to each participant. Practices randomised to active intervention arms (exercise and multifactorial falls prevention) screened participants for falls risk using a postal questionnaire. Active treatments were delivered to participants at higher risk of falling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was fracture rate over 18 months, captured from Hospital Episode Statistics, general practice records and self-report. Secondary outcomes were falls rate, health-related quality of life, mortality, frailty and health service resource use. Economic evaluation was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net monetary benefit. RESULTS Between 2011 and 2014, we randomised 63 general practices (9803 participants): 21 practices (3223 participants) to advice only, 21 practices (3279 participants) to exercise and 21 practices (3301 participants) to multifactorial falls prevention. In the active intervention arms, 5779 out of 6580 (87.8%) participants responded to the postal fall risk screener, of whom 2153 (37.3%) were classed as being at higher risk of falling and invited for treatment. The rate of intervention uptake was 65% (697 out of 1079) in the exercise arm and 71% (762 out of 1074) in the multifactorial falls prevention arm. Overall, 379 out of 9803 (3.9%) participants sustained a fracture. There was no difference in the fracture rate between the advice and exercise arms (rate ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.59) or between the advice and multifactorial falls prevention arms (rate ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.71). There was no difference in falls rate over 18 months (exercise arm: rate ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.14; multifactorial falls prevention arm: rate ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.30). A lower rate of falls was observed in the exercise arm at 8 months (rate ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.96), but not at other time points. There were 289 (2.9%) deaths, with no differences by treatment arm. There was no evidence of effects in prespecified subgroup comparisons, nor in nested intention-to-treat analyses that considered only those at higher risk of falling. Exercise provided the highest expected quality-adjusted life-years (1.120), followed by advice and multifactorial falls prevention, with 1.106 and 1.114 quality-adjusted life-years, respectively. NHS costs associated with exercise (£3720) were lower than the costs of advice (£3737) or of multifactorial falls prevention (£3941). Although incremental differences between treatment arms were small, exercise dominated advice, which in turn dominated multifactorial falls prevention. The incremental net monetary benefit of exercise relative to treatment valued at £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year is modest, at £191, and for multifactorial falls prevention is £613. Exercise is the most cost-effective treatment. No serious adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS The rate of fractures was lower than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS Screen-and-treat falls prevention strategies in primary care did not reduce fractures. Exercise resulted in a short-term reduction in falls and was cost-effective. FUTURE WORK Exercise is the most promising intervention for primary care. Work is needed to ensure adequate uptake and sustained effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71002650. 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. 25, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Bruce
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Anower Hossain
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.,Institute of Statistical Research and Training, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
| | - Ranjit Lall
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Emma J Withers
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Susanne Finnegan
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Martin Underwood
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Chen Ji
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Chris Bojke
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Roberta Longo
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Claire Hulme
- College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Susie Hennings
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Ray Sheridan
- General Medicine/Care of the Elderly, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK
| | - Katharine Westacott
- Elderly Care Department, Warwick Hospital, South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust, Warwick, UK
| | - Shvaita Ralhan
- Gerontology Department, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Finbarr Martin
- St Thomas' Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - John Davison
- Falls and Syncope Service, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Fiona Shaw
- Falls and Syncope Service, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Dawn A Skelton
- Centre for Living, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
| | - Jonathan Treml
- Geriatric Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Keith Willett
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sarah E Lamb
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.,College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.,Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Scragg R, Sluyter JD. Is There Proof of Extraskeletal Benefits From Vitamin D Supplementation From Recent Mega Trials of Vitamin D? JBMR Plus 2021; 5:e10459. [PMID: 33553994 PMCID: PMC7839821 DOI: 10.1002/jbm4.10459] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2020] [Revised: 12/14/2020] [Accepted: 12/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Scientific interest in possible extraskeletal effects of vitamin D first appeared in the 1930s soon after the structure of vitamin D was characterized, and increased in the 1980s with the development of assays of 25-hydroxyvitamin D status as a marker of vitamin D status, which in observational epidemiological studies was shown to be inversely associated with many nonskeletal diseases. This resulted in the start of seven large randomized controlled trials (n > 2000 participants in each) of vitamin D supplementation giving higher doses than previously used. The intervention periods in these trials collectively started in 2009 and continued to 2020. They have recruited participants, mostly of both sexes and over the age of 50 years, from many countries and have given either daily or monthly doses of vitamin D. Collectively, the trials have a wide range of outcomes with the main focus on the prevention of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and fractures, besides many other outcomes. The findings of four trials have been published, and they have shown that vitamin D supplementation does not prevent hard-disease endpoints, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, fractures, or falls, aside from a possible beneficial effect against cancer mortality. In contrast, beneficial effects were seen for intermediate outcomes such as BMD of spine and hips, arterial function, and lung function, especially in people with vitamin D deficiency. The finding of a benefit primarily in people with vitamin D deficiency, if confirmed by the other trials, would support a population approach to preventing vitamin D deficiency using fortification rather than the high-risk approach of screening for deficiency combined with supplementation. The findings on other outcomes from the three published trials, along with the findings from the four unpublished trials, are expected within the next 2 to 3 years to clarify the role of vitamin D supplementation in preventing nonskeletal disease. © 2020 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert Scragg
- School of Population Health University of Auckland Auckland New Zealand
| | - John D Sluyter
- School of Population Health University of Auckland Auckland New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|