Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation.

Rebecca Randell, Lynn McVey, Judy Wright, Hadar Zaman, V-Lin Cheong, David M Woodcock, Frances Healey, Dawn Dowding, Peter Gardner, Nicholas R Hardiker, Alison Lynch, Chris Todd, Christopher Davey, Natasha Alvarado
{"title":"Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation.","authors":"Rebecca Randell, Lynn McVey, Judy Wright, Hadar Zaman, V-Lin Cheong, David M Woodcock, Frances Healey, Dawn Dowding, Peter Gardner, Nicholas R Hardiker, Alison Lynch, Chris Todd, Christopher Davey, Natasha Alvarado","doi":"10.3310/JWQC5771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine how and in what contexts multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions are used in acute National Health Service hospitals in England.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>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 (<i>n</i> = 50), patient and carer interviews (<i>n</i> = 31) and record review (<i>n</i> = 60).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three Trusts, one orthopaedic and one older person ward in each.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>(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.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>(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.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020184458.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>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 <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/JWQC5771","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

急症医院的跌倒风险评估和预防实践:一项现实主义调查。
背景:跌倒是急诊医院报告的最常见的安全事故。国家健康与护理卓越研究所建议进行多因素跌倒风险评估并采取有针对性的干预措施,但实施情况却不尽相同。目的:确定英国国家健康服务局的急症医院如何以及在何种情况下使用多因素跌倒风险评估和有针对性的干预措施:设计:现实主义审查和多地点案例研究。(1) 系统性搜索,以确定利益相关者的理论,并使用初级研究的实证数据进行检验。回顾急诊信托基金的跌倒预防政策。(2) 通过观察、员工访谈(50 人)、患者和护理人员访谈(31 人)以及记录审查(60 人)对理论进行检验和完善:地点:三家托管医院,每家托管医院有一个骨科病房和一个老年人病房:结果:78 项研究用于理论构建,50 项研究用于理论检验。探讨了四种理论。(1) 领导力:病房有跌倒联系从业人员,但为预防跌倒分配资源的权力属于资深护士。(2) 责任分担:预防跌倒的关键策略是对患者进行监督。这项工作由护理人员负责,限制了预防跌倒责任的分担程度。(3) 促进:评估工作始终有据可查,但工作量压力可能会使评估工作沦为 "打勾"。评估项目各不相同。虽然确定了个别病人的风险因素,但还是将病人分为高风险和低风险两类,以决定谁应接受监督。(4) 病人的参与:护理人员没有时间向病人解释其跌倒风险或如何防止自己跌倒,尽管其他工作人员可以这样做。敏感的沟通可以防止患者采取增加跌倒风险的行动:在现实主义研究中,我们只完成了两个理论的综合。结论:(1)领导力:(1) 领导:在预防跌倒方面,高级护士和跌倒联系从业人员的角色应明确区分;(2) 责任分担:信托机构应考虑如何修改流程和系统,包括电子健康记录,以更好地支持多学科方法,并应考虑病人监护的替代方法;(3)促进:信托机构应考虑如何减轻文件记录负担,避免勾选框式回答,并确保跌倒风险评估工具中包含的项目与指南一致。跌倒风险评估工具和跌倒护理计划应被视为支持实践的工具,而不是需要审核的东西;(4)患者参与:未来的工作:(1)开发和评估干预措施,以支持多学科团队开展多因素跌倒风险评估、选择和实施有针对性的干预措施,并让患者参与其中;(2)对患者监督进行混合方法和经济评估;(3)评估支持预防跌倒的支持工作者、志愿者和/或护理人员的参与情况。研究对象应包括认知障碍患者和不会讲英语的患者:本研究已注册为 PROSPERO CRD42020184458:本奖项由国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究计划(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR129488)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》第12卷第5期。如需了解更多奖项信息,请访问 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信