ArticleJMIR medical informatics2021
Clinical Impact of an Analytic Tool for Predicting the Fall Risk in Inpatients: Controlled Interrupted Time Series.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in healthcare: transforming patient safety with intelligent systems-A systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Machine Learning in Causal Effect Estimation and Causal Evaluation of ML-Enabled Interventions in Nursing-Related Research: A Scoping Review.Nursing & health sciences · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for detecting fall events, assessing fall risks, and preventing fall occurrences in the elderly: A narrative review.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2026Review
- Cognitive readiness of nurses regarding artificial intelligence predictions: understanding through the dual lens of verbatim and gist knowledge.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Enhancing Adverse Event Reporting With Clinical Language Models: Inpatient Falls.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Observational
- Predictive Factors and the Predictive Scoring System for Falls in Acute Care Inpatients: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Article
- Utilizing standardized nursing terminologies in implementing an AI-powered fall-prevention tool to improve patient outcomes: a multihospital study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Evaluation of an approach to clinical decision support for preventing inpatient falls: a pragmatic trial.JAMIA open · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence for falls management in older adult care: A scoping review of nurses' role.Journal of nursing management · 2022Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient falls are a common cause of harm in acute-care hospitals worldwide. They are a difficult, complex, and common problem requiring a great deal of nurses' time, attention, and effort in practice. The recent rapid expansion of health care predictive analytic applications and the growing availability of electronic health record (EHR) data have resulted in the development of machine learning models that predict adverse events. However, the clinical impact of these models in terms of patient outcomes and clinicians' responses is undetermined.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the impact of an electronic analytic tool for predicting fall risk on patient outcomes and nurses' responses.
methodsA controlled interrupted time series (ITS) experiment was conducted in 12 medical-surgical nursing units at a public hospital between May 2017 and April 2019. In six of the units, the patients' fall risk was assessed using the St. Thomas' Risk Assessment Tool in Falling Elderly Inpatients (STRATIFY) system (control units), while in the other six, a predictive model for inpatient fall risks was implemented using routinely obtained data from the hospital's EHR system (intervention units). The primary outcome was the rate of patient falls; secondary outcomes included the rate of falls with injury and analysis of process metrics (nursing interventions that are designed to mitigate the risk of fall).
resultsDuring the study period, there were 42,476 admissions, of which 707 were for falls and 134 for fall injuries. Allowing for differences in the patients' characteristics and baseline process metrics, the number of patients with falls differed between the control (n=382) and intervention (n=325) units. The mean fall rate increased from 1.95 to 2.11 in control units and decreased from 1.92 to 1.79 in intervention units. A separate ITS analysis revealed that the immediate reduction was 29.73% in the intervention group (z=-2.06, P=.039) and 16.58% in the control group (z=-1.28, P=.20), but there was no ongoing effect. The injury rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (0.42 vs 0.31, z=1.50, P=.134). Among the process metrics, the risk-targeted interventions increased significantly over time in the intervention group.
conclusionsThis early-stage clinical evaluation revealed that implementation of an analytic tool for predicting fall risk may to contribute to an awareness of fall risk, leading to positive changes in nurses' interventions over time.
trial registrationClinical Research Information Service (CRIS), Republic of Korea KCT0005286; https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do/16984.
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.