ArticleCureus2024
Screening for Risk of Fall-Related Inpatient Trauma in a US Acute Care Setting.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Falls during hospitalization are a leading cause of preventable trauma-related injuries. Factors associated with fall risk include an unfamiliar environment, changes in health status, and efficacy based on the home environment. Assessing fall efficacy with an individualized prevention plan can decrease falls. The primary aim of this study was to estimate the effect of implementing a fall efficacy screening and intervention on reducing patient falls. Methods The study utilized a quasi-experimental, cross-sectional design with a convenience sample of patients admitted to an in-patient adult medical unit within a community hospital over a twelve-month period. Sampling times included pre-implementation, immediately post-implementation, and a second post-implementation phase. The intervention consisted of an admission fall efficacy screening tool and an individualized educational initiative. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics of central tendency and dispersion, along with inferential statistics using independent sample t-tests, chi-square tests, correlations, and binary logistic regression. Results Among the study participants (n=2,074), the total sample had an average age of 67.7 (+/- 17.4) years and had mean scores of 13.3 (6.9) on the Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International and 51.8 (20.3) on the Morse Fall Scale. Fifty-two percent of the study population were female; 16.2% of the patients were diagnosed with cerebrovascular accident (CVA) or CVA-like symptoms. Fall rates decreased with a rate of change of -4.15% after efficacy screening and intervention. Males demonstrated higher efficacy in avoiding falls compared to females (t(828) = 3.369, p <0.001). Patients with a CVA diagnosis demonstrated higher efficacy scores compared to non-CVA patients (t(2071) = -3.348, p <0.001). FES risk groups (OR of 5.632, 95% CI (2.171-7.892)) and age over 65 (OR 1.21, 95% CI (1.006-1.442)) were significant predictors of a fall when patients with a primary CVA diagnosis were omitted from the sample (p= 0.022 and 0.046 respectively). Conclusion The findings suggest that efficacy screening may be associated with decreased falls for acute care non-CVA inpatient populations over 65 years of age. Further research into the predictive utility of fall efficacy screening in acute care CVA and non-CVA hospitalized patient populations aged 65 years and above is recommended.
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.