Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39448944›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2024

The use and usefulness of the Peninsula Health Falls Risk Assessment Tool (PHFRAT) process in residential aged care: a mixed methods study across 25 aged care facilities.

Crisostomo Ibarra Mercado, Isabelle Meulenbroeks, Guogui Huang, Nasir Wabe, Karla Seaman, Joanna Clive, Johanna Westbrook

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Crisostomo Ibarra MercadoCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, 2113, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia.
Isabelle MeulenbroeksCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, 2113, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia. Isabelle.meulenbroeks@mq.edu.au.
Guogui HuangCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, 2113, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia.
Nasir WabeCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, 2113, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia.
Karla SeamanCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, 2113, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia.
Joanna CliveCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, 2113, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia.
Johanna WestbrookCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, 2113, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council,Australia APP1170898
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFalls remain a persistent problem in residential aged care (RAC) facilities. Fall screening and assessment tools such as the Peninsula Health Falls Risk Assessment Tool (PHFRAT) are widely used to inform falls risk and guide fall prevention interventions. However, it is unclear how it is used in practice and whether clinicians believe it supports resident care. This study aimed to measure the extent of use of PHFRAT to understand clinicians' perceptions of its value and usefulness.

methodsThis mixed method study involved an analysis of PHFRAT assessment from 25 RAC facilities in New South Wales, Australia, and interviews with seven RAC staff about how PHFRAT information is used in practice. In the quantitative component, descriptive statistics were applied to PHFRAT data to summarise how RAC staff use the PHFRAT including the completeness and content of the three parts. In the qualitative component, thematic analysis techniques were applied to interview data.

resultsThe sample included 215 RAC residents with 703 PHFRATs, of which 617 documented fall prevention interventions. Among these 617 PHFRATs, 593 (96.1%) included strategies related to staff assistance and 283 (45.9%) recorded strategies related to device provision. While nearly all residents (96.74%) received at least one PHFRAT assessment over the study period, many PHFRAT assessments were incomplete (part 1: 11.5% of information missing; part 2: 10.8%; part 3: 17.1%). There were few variations in fall interventions prescribed to individual residents by their fall risk level. Interviews with RAC staff indicated that PHFRAT assessments are the responsibility of registered nurses with limited input from other staff or residents. While the structured process was viewed positively in guiding risk assessment and intervention assessment, a lack of input from others prevented strategies from being tailored to residents' specific needs and preferences. A shortage of resources, lack of communication, and limited staff education were identified as the main barriers to PHFRAT guideline implementation.

conclusionThe PHFRAT provides a useful structure for clinicians to assess falls risk factors and plan falls prevention strategies. In the future, increased multidisciplinary input into fall prevention strategy development may improve the comprehensiveness of fall prevention plans.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsHomes for the AgedAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleNew South WalesNursing HomesRisk AssessmentFall preventionFallsPeninsula Health Falls Risk Assessment ToolProcess mapResidential aged care

Identifiers

PMID39448944
PMCPMC11515602

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.