ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2015
Pro-Active Fall-Risk Management is Mandatory to Sustain in Hospital-Fall Prevention in Older Patients--Validation of the LUCAS Fall-Risk Screening in 2,337 Patients.
Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prioritising patients for hospital occupational therapy to reduce inpatient falls: A retrospective case-control study to identify predictive patient falls risk factors.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2023Article
- Risk factors associated with in-hospital falls reported to the Patient Safety Commitee of a teaching hospital.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2019Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPrevention of in-hospital falls contributes to improvement of patient safety. However, the identification of high-risk patients remains a challenge despite knowledge of fall-risk factors. Hence, objective was to prospectively validate the performance of the LUCAS (Longitudinal Urban Cohort Ageing Study) fall-risk screening, based on routine data (fall history, mobility, mental status) and applied by nurses.
designObservational study comparing two groups of patients who underwent different fall-risk screenings; the LUCAS screening (2010 - 2011) and the STRATIFY (St. Thomas's Risk Assessment Tool In Falling Elderly Inpatients) (2004 - 2006).
settingUrban teaching hospital.
participantsConsecutively hospitalized patients (≥ 65 years old) were screened on admission; LUCAS n = 2,337, STRATIFY n = 4,735. MEASUREMENTS: The proportions of fallers were compared between the STRATIFY and the LUCAS time periods. The number of fallers expected was compared to that observed in the LUCAS time period. Standardized fall-incidence recording included case-note checks for unreported falls. Plausibility checks of fall-risk factors and logistic regression analysis for variable fall-risk factors were performed.
resultsThe proportions of fallers during the two time periods were LUCAS n = 291/2,337 (12.5%) vs. STRATIFY n = 508/4,735 (10.7%). After adjustment for risk-factor prevalence, the proportion of fallers expected was 14.5% (334/2,337), the proportion observed was 12.5% (291/2,337) (p = 0.038).
conclusionsIn-hospital fall prevention including systematic use of the LUCAS fall-risk screening reduced the proportion of fallers compared to that expected from the patients' fall-risk profile. Raw proportions of fallers are not suitable to evaluate fall prevention in hospital because of variable prevalence of patients' fall-risk factors over time. Continuous communication, education and training is needed to sustain in-hospital falls prevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.