ArticleScandinavian journal of caring sciences2020
Falls in hospital: a case-control study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of caring sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychotropic medication and in-hospital falls in older adults: a cohort-based secondary analysis with exploratory stratification among users.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Risk Factors and Profiles of Falls Among Inpatients in Vietnam: A Multicenter Nested Case-Control Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- 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
- Correlation between fall risk increasing drugs (FRIDs) and fall events at a rehabilitation hospital.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
- Falls in hospital: a case-control study.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsFalls among inpatients are common. The method used by The Norwegian Patient Safety Campaign to measure the adverse events is the Global Trigger Tool, which does not look at the causation for falls. This study was aimed at investigating major risk factors for falls in the hospital setting.
methodsThis retrospective case-control study was conducted at Telemark Hospital in Norway, in the period from September 2012 to August 2014. A total of 842 patients from three wards were included, whereof 172 cases had experienced one or more fall(s) during hospitalisation and 670 random controls had not fallen. Data were analysed according to a pragmatic strategy.
resultsCompared with patients who did not fall, patients who fell were 21 times more likely to have poor balance (OR = 21.50, 95% CI: 10.26-45.04) and 19 times more likely to have very poor balance (OR = 19.62, 95% CI: 9.55-40.27), twice as likely to be men (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.24-2.68), and 50% increased probability of fall with every 10 year increase of age (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.34-1.69). Furthermore, the patients who fell were more likely to use antidepressant drugs (OR = 3.85, 95% CI: 1.09-13.63), antipsychotic drugs (OR = 3.27, 95% CI: 1.94-5.51), anxiolytic/hypnotic drugs (OR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.22-2.67) and antiepileptic drugs (OR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.11-4.06) than patients who did not fall.
conclusionsDuring hospital stay, patients who fell had a higher risk profile than patients who did not fall. Clinicians should work to improve patients' safety and reduce the risk of falls by accurately assessing balance and mobility as a form of primary prevention. We recommend that a review of the patient medications should be conducted upon falling, as a form of a secondary preventive strategy against falls.
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.