Multidisciplinary assessment of elderly people with a history of multiple falls reduces the risk of further falls

Sarah E. Lamb
{"title":"Multidisciplinary assessment of elderly people with a history of multiple falls reduces the risk of further falls","authors":"Sarah E. Lamb","doi":"10.1016/S0004-9514(09)70047-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Question</h3><p>Does assessment by a multidisciplinary team, or assessment by a community nurse with the ability to refer to other professionals, reduce further falls in recurrent fallers?</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Cluster-randomised, controlled trial.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>18 general practices in the UK.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>Adults aged at least 65 years, living in the community, who had experienced 2 or more falls in the past year, and who did not present to an emergency department for their most recent fall. Inability to participate for one year, abbreviated mental test score less than 7, and nursing home placement were exclusion criteria. Randomisation of 516 participants allotted 213 to care by the multidisciplinary team (secondary care), 141 to care by the community nurse (primary care), and 162 to usual care.</p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>Participants allocated to secondary care attended a multidisciplinary clinic (comprising a doctor, nurse, physiotherapist, and occupational therapist) with referral for investigations, interventions (including Homecheck), and follow-up if necessary. Participants allocated to primary care were assessed by a community nurse who identified risk factors for falls and could refer to other professionals. Participants in the usual care group were assessed by their usual primary care physicians, who provided management at their own discretion.</p></div><div><h3>Outcome measures</h3><p>The primary outcome was the proportion of participants in each group who had at least one fall during the follow-up period of 12 months. Other outcomes were death, move to institutional care, change in Barthel score, change in the timed Get Up and Go score, fall-related fractures, and hospitalisations. Participants lost to follow-up were assumed to have had an adverse outcome.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>466 participants contributed data to the primary outcome, with an adverse outcome assumed for a further 39 participants on falls and other dichotomous outcomes. At 12 months, 75% of the secondary care group, 87% of the primary care group, and 84% of the usual care group had fallen. Secondary care prevented significantly more falls than usual care (adjusted odds ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.79). The secondary care group also had a significantly more positive Barthel index than the usual care group. The groups did not significantly differ on the other outcomes. The data were also analysed without imputing adverse outcomes for participants who were lost to follow-up. Compared to the usual care group, the secondary care group had significantly fewer falls, fractures, hospitalisations, and deaths.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Multidisciplinary assessment of elderly, recurrent fallers reduces the risk of further falls compared to usual care. Assessment of risk factors for falls by a community nurse with the potential to refer to other professionals did not have the same benefit.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50086,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":"55 2","pages":"Page 139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0004-9514(09)70047-9","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004951409700479","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Question

Does assessment by a multidisciplinary team, or assessment by a community nurse with the ability to refer to other professionals, reduce further falls in recurrent fallers?

Design

Cluster-randomised, controlled trial.

Setting

18 general practices in the UK.

Participants

Adults aged at least 65 years, living in the community, who had experienced 2 or more falls in the past year, and who did not present to an emergency department for their most recent fall. Inability to participate for one year, abbreviated mental test score less than 7, and nursing home placement were exclusion criteria. Randomisation of 516 participants allotted 213 to care by the multidisciplinary team (secondary care), 141 to care by the community nurse (primary care), and 162 to usual care.

Interventions

Participants allocated to secondary care attended a multidisciplinary clinic (comprising a doctor, nurse, physiotherapist, and occupational therapist) with referral for investigations, interventions (including Homecheck), and follow-up if necessary. Participants allocated to primary care were assessed by a community nurse who identified risk factors for falls and could refer to other professionals. Participants in the usual care group were assessed by their usual primary care physicians, who provided management at their own discretion.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants in each group who had at least one fall during the follow-up period of 12 months. Other outcomes were death, move to institutional care, change in Barthel score, change in the timed Get Up and Go score, fall-related fractures, and hospitalisations. Participants lost to follow-up were assumed to have had an adverse outcome.

Results

466 participants contributed data to the primary outcome, with an adverse outcome assumed for a further 39 participants on falls and other dichotomous outcomes. At 12 months, 75% of the secondary care group, 87% of the primary care group, and 84% of the usual care group had fallen. Secondary care prevented significantly more falls than usual care (adjusted odds ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.79). The secondary care group also had a significantly more positive Barthel index than the usual care group. The groups did not significantly differ on the other outcomes. The data were also analysed without imputing adverse outcomes for participants who were lost to follow-up. Compared to the usual care group, the secondary care group had significantly fewer falls, fractures, hospitalisations, and deaths.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary assessment of elderly, recurrent fallers reduces the risk of further falls compared to usual care. Assessment of risk factors for falls by a community nurse with the potential to refer to other professionals did not have the same benefit.

对有多次跌倒史的老年人进行多学科评估可降低再次跌倒的风险
由多学科小组进行评估,或由有能力转诊其他专业人员的社区护士进行评估,是否能减少复发性跌倒者的进一步跌倒?设计群-随机对照试验。在英国设置18个一般做法。参与者年龄至少65岁,居住在社区,在过去一年中经历过2次或2次以上跌倒,并且最近一次跌倒没有出现在急诊室。排除标准为1年无参与能力、简略智力测验得分低于7分、安置在养老院。516名参与者随机分配213名由多学科团队护理(二级护理),141名由社区护士护理(初级护理),162名接受常规护理。干预措施被分配到二级保健的参与者前往多学科诊所(由医生、护士、物理治疗师和职业治疗师组成)进行调查、干预(包括家庭检查)和必要时的随访。被分配到初级保健的参与者由一名社区护士进行评估,该护士确定了跌倒的危险因素,并可以参考其他专业人员。常规护理组的参与者由他们的常规初级保健医生进行评估,他们根据自己的判断提供管理。主要结果是每组参与者在12个月的随访期间至少有一次跌倒的比例。其他结果包括死亡、转到机构护理、Barthel评分改变、Get Up and Go计时评分改变、跌倒相关骨折和住院。失去随访的参与者被认为有不良结果。结果466名参与者为主要结局提供了数据,另外39名参与者在跌倒和其他二分结局方面假设有不良结局。在12个月时,75%的二级护理组、87%的初级护理组和84%的常规护理组下降了。二级护理比常规护理更能预防跌倒(校正优势比0.52,95% CI 0.35 ~ 0.79)。二级护理组Barthel指数明显高于常规护理组。两组在其他结果上没有显著差异。对数据进行了分析,但没有对失去随访的参与者的不良结果进行归因。与常规护理组相比,二级护理组的跌倒、骨折、住院和死亡明显减少。结论与常规护理相比,多学科评估老年人复发性跌倒可降低进一步跌倒的风险。由社区护士对跌倒风险因素进行评估,并有可能转诊给其他专业人员,却没有同样的好处。
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
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