探索跌倒预防从业人员如何评估和管理对跌倒的担忧。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Bianca Nicklen, Kim Delbaere, Toby J Ellmers
{"title":"探索跌倒预防从业人员如何评估和管理对跌倒的担忧。","authors":"Bianca Nicklen, Kim Delbaere, Toby J Ellmers","doi":"10.1007/s41999-024-01127-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Concerns about falling (CaF) are common in older adults. They can lead to various negative outcomes, including an increased risk for future falls. The Worlds Falls Guidelines recently published recommendations for assessing and treating CaF. However, the extent to which these guidelines have been adopted into falls prevention practice (in addition to the barriers preventing implementation) are currently unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was completed by 114 healthcare professionals working in falls prevention and rehabilitation services in the UK and Ireland. The survey explored their experiences and perceptions regarding the management and assessment of CaF.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only 39% of respondents reported using the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I), a tool recommended by the World Falls Guidelines for assessing CaF. Healthcare professionals in hospital settings were significantly less likely to use the FES-I compared to those working in the community (X<sup>2</sup> = 6.324, p = 0.043). While there was no significant difference between settings regarding the type of intervention used to manage CaF, only about 50% of participants adopted a holistic approach combining physical and psychological strategies as recommended by the World Falls Guidelines. The most commonly identified barriers to clinical management of CaF were a lack of both time and perceived effective interventions, particularly for those working within hospital settings (X<sup>2</sup> = 6.209, p = 0.013 and X<sup>2</sup> = 3.752, p = 0.053, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings indicate low levels of adoption of the World Falls Guidelines recommendations for assessing and managing CaF, especially in hospital settings. Future work should focus on addressing these barriers to maximise the clinical adoption of these recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":49287,"journal":{"name":"European Geriatric Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring how falls prevention practitioners assess and manage concerns about falling.\",\"authors\":\"Bianca Nicklen, Kim Delbaere, Toby J Ellmers\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41999-024-01127-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Concerns about falling (CaF) are common in older adults. They can lead to various negative outcomes, including an increased risk for future falls. The Worlds Falls Guidelines recently published recommendations for assessing and treating CaF. However, the extent to which these guidelines have been adopted into falls prevention practice (in addition to the barriers preventing implementation) are currently unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was completed by 114 healthcare professionals working in falls prevention and rehabilitation services in the UK and Ireland. The survey explored their experiences and perceptions regarding the management and assessment of CaF.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only 39% of respondents reported using the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I), a tool recommended by the World Falls Guidelines for assessing CaF. Healthcare professionals in hospital settings were significantly less likely to use the FES-I compared to those working in the community (X<sup>2</sup> = 6.324, p = 0.043). While there was no significant difference between settings regarding the type of intervention used to manage CaF, only about 50% of participants adopted a holistic approach combining physical and psychological strategies as recommended by the World Falls Guidelines. The most commonly identified barriers to clinical management of CaF were a lack of both time and perceived effective interventions, particularly for those working within hospital settings (X<sup>2</sup> = 6.209, p = 0.013 and X<sup>2</sup> = 3.752, p = 0.053, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings indicate low levels of adoption of the World Falls Guidelines recommendations for assessing and managing CaF, especially in hospital settings. Future work should focus on addressing these barriers to maximise the clinical adoption of these recommendations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49287,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Geriatric Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Geriatric Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-024-01127-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Geriatric Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-024-01127-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:担心跌倒(CaF)在老年人中很常见。它们可能导致各种负面后果,包括未来摔倒的风险增加。世界瀑布指南最近发布了评估和治疗CaF的建议。然而,目前尚不清楚这些指南在预防跌倒实践中被采纳的程度(除了妨碍实施的障碍之外)。方法:一项横断面调查由114名在英国和爱尔兰从事跌倒预防和康复服务的医疗保健专业人员完成。该调查探讨了他们在管理和评估CaF方面的经验和看法。结果:只有39%的受访者报告使用国际瀑布功效量表(FES-I),这是世界瀑布指南推荐的评估CaF的工具。与社区医护人员相比,医院医护人员使用FES-I的可能性显著降低(X2 = 6.324, p = 0.043)。虽然在用于管理CaF的干预类型方面,不同环境之间没有显著差异,但只有约50%的参与者采用了《世界瀑布指南》推荐的结合生理和心理策略的整体方法。最常见的CaF临床管理障碍是缺乏时间和可感知的有效干预措施,特别是对于那些在医院环境中工作的人(X2 = 6.209, p = 0.013和X2 = 3.752, p = 0.053)。结论:这些发现表明,在评估和管理CaF方面,特别是在医院环境中,世界瀑布指南建议的采用率较低。未来的工作应侧重于解决这些障碍,以最大限度地提高这些建议的临床采用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring how falls prevention practitioners assess and manage concerns about falling.

Background: Concerns about falling (CaF) are common in older adults. They can lead to various negative outcomes, including an increased risk for future falls. The Worlds Falls Guidelines recently published recommendations for assessing and treating CaF. However, the extent to which these guidelines have been adopted into falls prevention practice (in addition to the barriers preventing implementation) are currently unknown.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was completed by 114 healthcare professionals working in falls prevention and rehabilitation services in the UK and Ireland. The survey explored their experiences and perceptions regarding the management and assessment of CaF.

Results: Only 39% of respondents reported using the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I), a tool recommended by the World Falls Guidelines for assessing CaF. Healthcare professionals in hospital settings were significantly less likely to use the FES-I compared to those working in the community (X2 = 6.324, p = 0.043). While there was no significant difference between settings regarding the type of intervention used to manage CaF, only about 50% of participants adopted a holistic approach combining physical and psychological strategies as recommended by the World Falls Guidelines. The most commonly identified barriers to clinical management of CaF were a lack of both time and perceived effective interventions, particularly for those working within hospital settings (X2 = 6.209, p = 0.013 and X2 = 3.752, p = 0.053, respectively).

Conclusion: These findings indicate low levels of adoption of the World Falls Guidelines recommendations for assessing and managing CaF, especially in hospital settings. Future work should focus on addressing these barriers to maximise the clinical adoption of these recommendations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Geriatric Medicine
European Geriatric Medicine GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
114
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: European Geriatric Medicine is the official journal of the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS). Launched in 2010, this journal aims to publish the highest quality material, both scientific and clinical, on all aspects of Geriatric Medicine. The EUGMS is interested in the promotion of Geriatric Medicine in any setting (acute or subacute care, rehabilitation, nursing homes, primary care, fall clinics, ambulatory assessment, dementia clinics..), and also in functionality in old age, comprehensive geriatric assessment, geriatric syndromes, geriatric education, old age psychiatry, models of geriatric care in health services, and quality assurance.
×
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