Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32955445›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Automated Fall Detection Algorithm With Global Trigger Tool, Incident Reports, Manual Chart Review, and Patient-Reported Falls: Algorithm Development and Validation With a Retrospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

Elisa Dolci, Barbara Schärer, Nicole Grossmann, Sarah Naima Musy, Franziska Zúñiga, Stefanie Bachnick, Michael Simon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Predictive values of trigger tools for identifying adverse events in hospitalized patients using a medical record review: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Elisa Dolci *MediZentrum Täuffelen, Täuffelen, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1577-321X
Barbara Schärer *Nursing & Midwifery Research Unit, Inselspital Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4139-4961
Nicole GrossmannDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2375-4783
Sarah Naima MusyNursing & Midwifery Research Unit, Inselspital Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0267-3375
Franziska ZúñigaInstitute of Nursing Science, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8844-4903
Stefanie BachnickInstitute of Nursing Science, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2747-3866
Michael SimonNursing & Midwifery Research Unit, Inselspital Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2349-7219

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFalls are common adverse events in hospitals, frequently leading to additional health costs due to prolonged stays and extra care. Therefore, reliable fall detection is vital to develop and test fall prevention strategies. However, conventional methods-voluntary incident reports and manual chart reviews-are error-prone and time consuming, respectively. Using a search algorithm to examine patients' electronic health record data and flag fall indicators offers an inexpensive, sensitive, cost-effective alternative.

objectiveThis study's purpose was to develop a fall detection algorithm for use with electronic health record data, then to evaluate it alongside the Global Trigger Tool, incident reports, a manual chart review, and patient-reported falls.

methodsConducted on 2 campuses of a large hospital system in Switzerland, this retrospective diagnostic accuracy study consisted of 2 substudies: the first, targeting 240 patients, for algorithm development and the second, targeting 298 patients, for validation. In the development study, we compared the new algorithm's in-hospital fall rates with those indicated by the Global Trigger Tool and incident reports; in the validation study, we compared the algorithm's in-hospital fall rates with those from patient-reported falls and manual chart review. We compared the various methods by calculating sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values.

resultsTwenty in-hospital falls were discovered in the development study sample. Of these, the algorithm detected 19 (sensitivity 95%), the Global Trigger Tool detected 18 (90%), and incident reports detected 14 (67%). Of the 15 falls found in the validation sample, the algorithm identified all 15 (100%), the manual chart review identified 14 (93%), and the patient-reported fall measure identified 5 (33%). Owing to relatively high numbers of false positives based on falls present on admission, the algorithm's positive predictive values were 50% (development sample) and 47% (validation sample). Instead of requiring 10 minutes per case for a full manual review or 20 minutes to apply the Global Trigger Tool, the algorithm requires only a few seconds, after which only the positive results (roughly 11% of the full case number) require review.

conclusionsThe newly developed electronic health record algorithm demonstrated very high sensitivity for fall detection. Applied in near real time, the algorithm can record in-hospital falls events effectively and help to develop and test fall prevention measures.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAccidental FallsAlgorithmsElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesRisk Managementadverse eventalgorithmfallsharmnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID32955445
PMCPMC7536608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.