Search

Objectives: To determine the incidence of falls, risk factors, and adverse outcomes, among patients admitted to the ICU., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Seventeen ICUs in Alberta, Canada., Patients: Seventy-three thousand four hundred ninety-five consecutive adult patient admissions between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019., Measurements and Main Results: A mixed-effects negative binomial regression model was used to examine risk factors associated with falls. Linear and logistic regression models were used to evaluate adverse outcomes. Six hundred forty patients experienced 710 falls over 398,223 patient days (incidence rate of 1.78 falls per 1,000 patient days [95% CI, 1.65-1.91]). The daily incidence of falls increased during the ICU stay (e.g., day 1 vs day 7; 0.51 vs 2.43 falls per 1,000 patient days) and varied significantly between ICUs (range, 0.37-4.64 falls per 1,000 patient days). Male sex (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.15-1.63), previous invasive mechanical ventilation (IRR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.40-2.38), previous sedative and analgesic medication infusions (IRR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.15-2.24), delirium (IRR, 3.85; 95% CI, 3.23-4.58), and patient mobilization (IRR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.21-1.30) were risk factors for falling. Falls were associated with longer ICU (ratio of means [RM], 3.10; 95% CI, 2.86-3.36) and hospital (RM, 2.21; 95% CI, 2.01-2.42) stays, but lower odds of death in the ICU (odds ratio [OR], 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05-0.17) and hospital (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.14-0.30)., Conclusions: We observed that among ICU patients, falls occur frequently, vary substantially between ICUs, and are associated with modifiable risk factors, longer ICU and hospital stays, and lower risk of death. Our study suggests that fall prevention strategies should be considered for critically ill patients admitted to ICU., Competing Interests: Dr. Bagshaw received funding from Baxter and CNA Diagnostics. Dr. Bagshaw is supported by a Canada Research Chair in Critical Care Nephrology. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: An estimated 20-30% of community-dwelling Canadian adults aged 65 years or older experience one or more falls each year. Fall-related injuries are a leading cause of hospitalization and can lead to functional independence. Many fall prevention interventions, often based on modifiable risk factors, have been studied. Apart from the magnitude of the benefits and harms from different interventions, the preferences of older adults for different interventions as well as the relative importance they place on the different potential outcomes may influence recommendations by guideline panels. These reviews on benefits and harms of interventions, and on patient values and preferences, will inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to develop recommendations on fall prevention for primary care providers., Methods: To review the benefits and harms of fall prevention interventions, we will update a previous systematic review of randomized controlled trials with adaptations to modify the classification of interventions and narrow the scope to community-dwelling older adults and primary-care relevant interventions. Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ageline), reference lists, trial registries, and relevant websites will be searched, using limits for randomized trials and date (2016 onwards). We will classify interventions according to the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFANE) Group's taxonomy. Outcomes include fallers, falls, injurious falls, fractures, hip fractures, institutionalization, health-related quality of life, functional status, and intervention-related adverse effects. For studies not included in the previous review, screening, study selection, data extraction on outcomes, and risk of bias assessments will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus used for final decisions. Where quantitative analysis is suitable, network or pairwise meta-analysis will be conducted using a frequentist approach in Stata. Assessment of the transitivity and coherence of the network meta-analyses will be undertaken. For the reviews on patient preferences and outcome valuation (relative importance of outcomes), we will perform de novo reviews with searches in three databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) and reference lists for cross-sectional, longitudinal quantitative, or qualitative studies published from 2000. Selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments suitable for each study design will be performed in duplicate. The analysis will be guided by a narrative synthesis approach, which may include meta-analysis for health-state utilities. We will use the CINeMa approach to a rate the certainty of the evidence for outcomes on intervention effects analyzed using network meta-analysis and the GRADE approach for all other outcomes., Discussion: We will describe the flow of literature and characteristics of all studies and present results of all analyses and summary of finding tables. We will compare our findings to others and discuss the limitations of the reviews and the available literature., Systematic Review Registration: This protocol has not been registered.

Background: Falls are a common occurrence and the most effective quality improvement (QI) strategies remain unclear., Methods: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to elucidate effective quality improvement (QI) strategies for falls prevention. Multiple databases were searched (inception-April 2017). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of falls prevention QI strategies for participants aged ≥65 years. Two investigators screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, conducted data abstraction and appraised risk of bias independently., Results: A total of 126 RCTs including 84,307 participants were included after screening 10,650 titles and abstracts and 1210 full-text articles. NMA including 29 RCTs and 26,326 patients found that team changes was statistically superior in reducing the risk of injurious falls relative to usual care (odds ratio [OR] 0.57 [0.33 to 0.99]; absolute risk difference [ARD] -0.11 [95% CI, -0.18 to -0.002]). NMA for the outcome of number of fallers including 61 RCTs and 40 128 patients found that combined case management, patient reminders and staff education (OR 0.18 [0.07 to 0.47]; ARD -0.27 [95% CI, -0.33 to -0.15]) and combined case management and patient reminders (OR, 0.36 [0.13 to 0.97]; ARD -0.19 [95% CI, -0.30 to -0.01]) were both statistically superior compared to usual care., Conclusions: Team changes may reduce risk of injurious falls and a combination of case management, patient reminders, and staff education, as well as case management and patient reminders may reduce risk of falls. Our results can be tailored to decision-maker preferences and availability of resources., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42013004151)., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Importance: Falls result in substantial burden for patients and health care systems, and given the aging of the population worldwide, the incidence of falls continues to rise., Objective: To assess the potential effectiveness of interventions for preventing falls., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Ageline databases from inception until April 2017. Reference lists of included studies were scanned., Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of fall-prevention interventions for participants aged 65 years and older., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Pairs of reviewers independently screened the studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk of bias. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were conducted., Main Outcomes and Measures: Injurious falls and fall-related hospitalizations., Results: A total of 283 RCTs (159 910 participants; mean age, 78.1 years; 74% women) were included after screening of 10 650 titles and abstracts and 1210 full-text articles. Network meta-analysis (including 54 RCTs, 41 596 participants, 39 interventions plus usual care) suggested that the following interventions, when compared with usual care, were associated with reductions in injurious falls: exercise (odds ratio [OR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.79]; absolute risk difference [ARD], -0.67 [95% CI, -1.10 to -0.24]); combined exercise and vision assessment and treatment (OR, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.38]; ARD, -1.79 [95% CI, -2.63 to -0.96]); combined exercise, vision assessment and treatment, and environmental assessment and modification (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.70]; ARD, -1.19 [95% CI, -2.04 to -0.35]); and combined clinic-level quality improvement strategies (eg, case management), multifactorial assessment and treatment (eg, comprehensive geriatric assessment), calcium supplementation, and vitamin D supplementation (OR, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.55]; ARD, -2.08 [95% CI, -3.56 to -0.60]). Pairwise meta-analyses for fall-related hospitalizations (2 RCTs; 516 participants) showed no significant association between combined clinic- and patient-level quality improvement strategies and multifactorial assessment and treatment relative to usual care (OR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.33 to 1.81])., Conclusions and Relevance: Exercise alone and various combinations of interventions were associated with lower risk of injurious falls compared with usual care. Choice of fall-prevention intervention may depend on patient and caregiver values and preferences.

Background: Falls are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in older adults. Although numerous trials of falls prevention interventions have been completed, there is extensive variation in their intervention components and clinical context, such that the key elements of an effective falls prevention program remain unclear to patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. Our objective is to identify the most effective interventions and combinations of interventions that prevent falls though a systematic review and meta-analysis, including a network meta-analysis., Methods/design: We will search for published (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ageline) and unpublished (e.g., trial registries, dissertations) randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in all languages examining interventions to prevent falls compared to usual care or other falls prevention interventions among adults aged ≥65 years from all settings (e.g., community, acute care, long-term care, and rehabilitation). The primary outcomes are number of injurious falls and number of hospitalizations due to falls. Secondary outcomes include falls rate, number of fallers, number of emergency room visits due to falls, number of physician visits due to falls, number of fractures, costs, and number of intervention-related harms (e.g., muscle soreness related to exercise).We will calibrate our eligibility criteria amongst the team and two independent team members will screen the literature search results in duplicate. Conflicts will be resolved through team discussion. A similar process will be used for data abstraction and quality appraisal with the Cochrane risk of bias tool.Our results will be synthesized descriptively and a random effects meta-analysis will be conducted if the studies are deemed methodologically, clinically, and statistically (e.g., I²<60%) similar. If appropriate, a network meta-analysis will be conducted, which will allow the comparison of interventions that have not been compared in head-to-head RCTs, as well as the effectiveness of interventions., Discussion: We will identify the most effective interventions and combinations of interventions that prevent falls in older people. Our results will be used to optimize falls prevention strategies, and our goal is to ultimately improve the health of seniors internationally., Trial Registration: PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013004151.