Search

Objectives: To determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a multifactorial fall prevention programme compared with usual care in long term care homes., Design: Multicentre, parallel, cluster randomised controlled trial., Setting: Long term care homes in the UK, registered to care for older people or those with dementia., Participants: 1657 consenting residents and 84 care homes. 39 were randomised to the intervention group and 45 were randomised to usual care., Interventions: Guide to Action for Care Homes (GtACH): a multifactorial fall prevention programme or usual care., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome measure was fall rate at 91-180 days after randomisation. The economic evaluation measured health related quality of life using quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the five domain five level version of the EuroQoL index (EQ-5D-5L) or proxy version (EQ-5D-5L-P) and the Dementia Quality of Life utility measure (DEMQOL-U), which were self-completed by competent residents and by a care home staff member proxy (DEMQOL-P-U) for all residents (in case the ability to complete changed during the study) until 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcome measures were falls at 1-90, 181-270, and 271-360 days after randomisation, Barthel index score, and the Physical Activity Measure-Residential Care Homes (PAM-RC) score at 91, 180, 270, and 360 days after randomisation., Results: Mean age of residents was 85 years. 32% were men. GtACH training was delivered to 1051/1480 staff (71%). Primary outcome data were available for 630 participants in the GtACH group and 712 in the usual care group. The unadjusted incidence rate ratio for falls between 91 and 180 days was 0.57 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.71, P<0.001) in favour of the GtACH programme (GtACH: six falls/1000 residents v usual care: 10 falls/1000). Barthel activities of daily living indices and PAM-RC scores were similar between groups at all time points. The incremental cost was £108 (95% confidence interval -£271.06 to 487.58), incremental QALYs gained for EQ-5D-5L-P was 0.024 (95% confidence interval 0.004 to 0.044) and for DEMQOL-P-U was 0.005 (-0.019 to 0.03). The incremental costs per EQ-5D-5L-P and DEMQOL-P-U based QALY were £4544 and £20 889, respectively., Conclusions: The GtACH programme was associated with a reduction in fall rate and cost effectiveness, without a decrease in activity or increase in dependency., Trial Registration: ISRCTN34353836., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: funding from the National Institute for Health Research; no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: With 70% of care home residents experiencing a medication error every day in the UK, better multi-professional working between medical practitioners, pharmacists and care homes was recommended. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness (falls reduction) and cost-effectiveness, of a multi-professional medication review (MPMR) service in care homes for older people., Method: A total of care homes in the East of England were cluster randomised to 'usual care' or two multi-professional (General practitioner, clinical pharmacist and care homes staff) medication reviews during the 12-month trial period. Target recruitment was 900 residents with 10% assumed loss to follow-up. Co-primary outcome measures were number of falls and potentially inappropriate prescribing assessed by the Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions., Key Findings: A total of 826 care home residents were recruited with 324 lost to follow-up for at least one primary outcome measure. The mean number of falls per resident per annum was 3.3 for intervention and 3.0 for control (P = 0.947). Each resident was found to be prescribed 0.69 (intervention) and 0.85 (control) potentially inappropriate medicines after 12 months (P = 0.046). No significant difference identified in emergency hospital admissions or deaths. Estimated unadjusted incremental mean cost per resident was £374.26 higher in the intervention group., Conclusions: In line with other medication review based interventions in care homes, two MPMRs improved medication appropriateness but failed to demonstrate improvements in clinical outcomes. From a health system perspective costs where estimated to increase overall and therefore a different model of medicines management is required., (© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

Background: falls in hospitals are a major problem and contribute to substantial healthcare burden. Advances in sensor technology afford innovative approaches to reducing falls in acute hospital care. However, whether these are clinically effective and cost effective in the UK setting has not been evaluated., Methods: pragmatic, parallel-arm, individual randomised controlled trial of bed and bedside chair pressure sensors using radio-pagers (intervention group) compared with standard care (control group) in elderly patients admitted to acute, general medical wards, in a large UK teaching hospital. Primary outcome measure number of in-patient bedside falls per 1,000 bed days., Results: 1,839 participants were randomised (918 to the intervention group and 921 to the control group). There were 85 bedside falls (65 fallers) in the intervention group, falls rate 8.71 per 1,000 bed days compared with 83 bedside falls (64 fallers) in the control group, falls rate 9.84 per 1,000 bed days (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-1.22; P = 0.51). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to time to first bedside fall (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 0.95; 95% CI: 0.67-1.34; P= 0.12). The mean cost per patient in the intervention group was £7199 compared with £6400 in the control group, mean difference in QALYs per patient, 0.0001 (95% CI: -0.0006-0.0004, P= 0.67)., Conclusions: bed and bedside chair pressure sensors as a single intervention strategy do not reduce in-patient bedside falls, time to first bedside fall and are not cost-effective in elderly patients in acute, general medical wards in the UK., Trial Registration: isrctn.org identifier: ISRCTN44972300.

Objective: to determine the clinical effectiveness of a day hospital-delivered multifactorial falls prevention programme, for community-dwelling older people at high risk of future falls identified through a screening process., Design: multicentre randomised controlled trial., Setting: eight general practices and three day hospitals based in the East Midlands, UK., Participants: three hundred and sixty-four participants, mean age 79 years, with a median of three falls risk factors per person at baseline., Interventions: a day hospital-delivered multifactorial falls prevention programme, consisting of strength and balance training, a medical review and a home hazards assessment., Main Outcome Measure: rate of falls over 12 months of follow-up, recorded using self-completed monthly diaries., Results: one hundred and seventy-two participants in each arm contributed to the primary outcome analysis. The overall falls rate during follow-up was 1.7 falls per person-year in the intervention arm compared with 2.0 falls per person-year in the control arm. The stratum-adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.86 (95% CI 0.73-1.01), P = 0.08, and 0.73 (95% CI 0.51-1.03), P = 0.07 when adjusted for baseline characteristics. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control arms in any secondary outcomes., Conclusion: this trial did not conclusively demonstrate the benefit of a day hospital-delivered multifactorial falls prevention programme, in a population of older people identified as being at high risk of a future fall.

Background: multifactorial falls prevention programmes for older people have been proved to reduce falls. However, evidence of their cost-effectiveness is mixed., Design: economic evaluation alongside pragmatic randomised controlled trial., Intervention: randomised trial of 364 people aged ≥70, living in the community, recruited via GP and identified as high risk of falling. Both arms received a falls prevention information leaflet. The intervention arm were also offered a (day hospital) multidisciplinary falls prevention programme, including physiotherapy, occupational therapy, nurse, medical review and referral to other specialists., Measurements: self-reported falls, as collected in 12 monthly diaries. Levels of health resource use associated with the falls prevention programme, screening (both attributed to intervention arm only) and other health-care contacts were monitored. Mean NHS costs and falls per person per year were estimated for both arms, along with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost effectiveness acceptability curve., Results: in the base-case analysis, the mean falls programme cost was £349 per person. This, coupled with higher screening and other health-care costs, resulted in a mean incremental cost of £578 for the intervention arm. The mean falls rate was lower in the intervention arm (2.07 per person/year), compared with the control arm (2.24). The estimated ICER was £3,320 per fall averted., Conclusions: the estimated ICER was £3,320 per fall averted. Future research should focus on adherence to the intervention and an assessment of impact on quality of life.

Objective: To evaluate whether a service to prevent falls in the community would help reduce the rate of falls in older people who call an emergency ambulance when they fall but are not taken to hospital., Design: Randomised controlled trial., Setting: Community covered by four primary care trusts, England., Participants: 204 adults aged more than 60 living at home or in residential care who had fallen and called an emergency ambulance but were not taken to hospital., Interventions: Referral to community fall prevention services or standard medical and social care., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the rate of falls over 12 months, ascertained from monthly diaries. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Barthel index, Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale, and falls efficacy scale at baseline and by postal questionnaire at 12 months. Analysis was by intention to treat., Results: 102 people were allocated to each group. 99 (97%) participants in the intervention group received the intervention. Falls diaries were analysed for 88.6 person years in the intervention group and 84.5 person years in the control group. The incidence rates of falls per year were 3.46 in the intervention group and 7.68 in the control group (incidence rate ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.58, P<0.001). The intervention group achieved higher scores on the Barthel index and Nottingham extended activities of daily living and lower scores on the falls efficacy scale (all P<0.05) at the 12 month follow-up. The number of times an emergency ambulance was called because of a fall was significantly different during follow-up (incidence rate ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.92, P=0.018)., Conclusion: A service to prevent falls in the community reduced the fall rate and improved clinical outcome in the high risk group of older people who call an emergency ambulance after a fall but are not taken to hospital., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN67535605.

Background: Falls in hospitals are common, resulting in injury and anxiety to patients, and large costs to NHS organisations. More than half of all in-patient falls in elderly people in acute care settings occur at the bedside, during transfers or whilst getting up to go to the toilet. In the majority of cases these falls are unwitnessed. There is insufficient evidence underpinning the effectiveness of interventions to guide clinical staff regarding the reduction of falls in the elderly inpatient. New patient monitoring technologies have the potential to offer advances in falls prevention. Bedside sensor equipment can alert staff, not in the immediate vicinity, to a potential problem and avert a fall. However no studies utilizing this assistive technology have demonstrated a significant reduction in falls rates in a randomised controlled trial setting., Methods/design: The research design is an individual patient randomised controlled trial of bedside chair and bed pressure sensors, incorporating a radio-paging alerting mode to alert staff to patients rising from their bed or chair, across five acute elderly care wards in Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. Participants will be randomised to bedside chair and bed sensors or to usual care (without the use of sensors). The primary outcome is the number of bedside in-patient falls., Discussion: The REFINE study is the first randomised controlled trial of bedside pressure sensors in elderly inpatients in an acute NHS Trust. We will assess whether falls can be successfully and cost effectively reduced using this technology, and report on its acceptability to both patients and staff.