Search

Background: The World Falls Guidelines (WFG) propose an algorithm that classifies patients as low-, intermediate-, and high-risk. We evaluated different operationalizations of the WFG algorithm and compared its predictive performance to other screening tools for falls, namely: the American Geriatrics Society and British Geriatrics Society (AGS/BGS) algorithm, the 3KQ on their own and fall history on its own., Methods: We included data from 1509 adults aged ≥65 years from the population-based Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. The outcome was ≥1 fall during 1-year follow-up, which was ascertained using fall calendars. The screening tools' items were retrospectively operationalized using baseline measures, using proxies where necessary., Results: Sensitivity ranged between 30.9-48.0% and specificity ranged between 77.0-88.2%. Operationalizing the algorithm with the 3KQ instead of fall history yielded a higher sensitivity but lower specificity, whereas operationalization with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) classification tree instead of Fried's frailty criteria did not affect predictive performance. Compared to the WFG algorithm, the AGS/BGS algorithm and fall history on its own yielded similar predictive performance, whereas the 3KQ on their own yielded a higher sensitivity but lower specificity., Conclusion: The WFG algorithm can identify patients at risk of a fall, especially when the 3KQ are included in its operationalization. The CFS and Fried's frailty criteria may be used interchangeably in the algorithm's operationalization. The algorithm performed similarly compared to other screening tools, except for the 3KQ on their own, which have higher sensitivity but lower specificity and lack clinical recommendations per risk category., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.)

Introduction: Deprescribing fall-risk increasing drugs (FRIDs) is promising for reducing the risk of falling in older adults. Applying appropriate deprescribing in practice can be difficult due to the outcome uncertainties associated with stopping FRIDs. The ADFICE_IT intervention addresses this complexity with a clinical decision support system (CDSS) that facilitates optimum deprescribing of FRIDs by using a fall-risk prediction model, aggregation of deprescribing guidelines, and joint medication management., Methods: The development process of the CDSS is described in this paper. Development followed a user-centered design approach in which users and experts were involved throughout each phase. In phase I, a prototype of the CDSS was developed which involved a literature and systematic review, European survey (n = 581), and semi-structured interviews with clinicians (n = 19), as well as the aggregation and testing of deprescribing guidelines and the development of the fall-risk prediction model. In phase II, the feasibility of the CDSS was tested by means of two usability testing rounds with users (n = 11)., Results: The final CDSS consists of five web pages. A connection between the Electronic Health Record allows for the retrieval of patient data into the CDSS. Key design requirements for the CDSS include easy-to-use features for fast-paced clinical environments, actionable deprescribing recommendations, information transparency, and visualization of the patient's fall-risk estimation. Key elements for the software include a modular architecture, open source, and good security., Conclusion: The ADFICE_IT CDSS supports physicians in deprescribing FRIDs optimally to prevent falls in older patients. Due to continuous user and expert involvement, each new feedback round led to an improved version of the system. Currently, a cluster-randomized controlled trial with process evaluation at hospitals in the Netherlands is being conducted to test the effect of the CDSS on falls. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (date; 7-7-2022, identifier: NCT05449470)., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Groos et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Given the requirement to minimize the risks and maximize the benefits of technology applications in health care provision, there is an urgent need to incorporate theory-informed health IT (HIT) evaluation frameworks into existing and emerging guidelines for the evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI). Such frameworks can help developers, implementers, and strategic decision makers to build on experience and the existing empirical evidence base. We provide a pragmatic conceptual overview of selected concrete examples of how existing theory-informed HIT evaluation frameworks may be used to inform the safe development and implementation of AI in health care settings. The list is not exhaustive and is intended to illustrate applications in line with various stakeholder requirements. Existing HIT evaluation frameworks can help to inform AI-based development and implementation by supporting developers and strategic decision makers in considering relevant technology, user, and organizational dimensions. This can facilitate the design of technologies, their implementation in user and organizational settings, and the sustainability and scalability of technologies., (©Kathrin Cresswell, Nicolette de Keizer, Farah Magrabi, Robin Williams, Michael Rigby, Mirela Prgomet, Polina Kukhareva, Zoie Shui-Yee Wong, Philip Scott, Catherine K Craven, Andrew Georgiou, Stephanie Medlock, Jytte Brender McNair, Elske Ammenwerth. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 07.08.2024.)

Background: Prediction models can identify fall-prone individuals. Prediction models can be based on either data from research cohorts (cohort-based) or routinely collected data (RCD-based). We review and compare cohort-based and RCD-based studies describing the development and/or validation of fall prediction models for community-dwelling older adults., Methods: Medline and Embase were searched via Ovid until January 2023. We included studies describing the development or validation of multivariable prediction models of falls in older adults (60+). Both risk of bias and reporting quality were assessed using the PROBAST and TRIPOD, respectively., Results: We included and reviewed 28 relevant studies, describing 30 prediction models (23 cohort-based and 7 RCD-based), and external validation of two existing models (one cohort-based and one RCD-based). The median sample sizes for cohort-based and RCD-based studies were 1365 [interquartile range (IQR) 426-2766] versus 90 441 (IQR 56 442-128 157), and the ranges of fall rates were 5.4% to 60.4% versus 1.6% to 13.1%, respectively. Discrimination performance was comparable between cohort-based and RCD-based models, with the respective area under the receiver operating characteristic curves ranging from 0.65 to 0.88 versus 0.71 to 0.81. The median number of predictors in cohort-based final models was 6 (IQR 5-11); for RCD-based models, it was 16 (IQR 11-26). All but one cohort-based model had high bias risks, primarily due to deficiencies in statistical analysis and outcome determination., Conclusions: Cohort-based models to predict falls in older adults in the community are plentiful. RCD-based models are yet in their infancy but provide comparable predictive performance with no additional data collection efforts. Future studies should focus on methodological and reporting quality., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.)