ArticleCureus2025
Visual Assessment in Elderly Inpatients Following a Fall.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 are a major cause of morbidity in older adults, with visual impairment recognized as a key modifiable risk factor. National guidelines recommend vision assessment following a fall; however, adherence remains suboptimal. This quality improvement project aimed to evaluate compliance with national recommendations and implement interventions to improve visual assessment rates in elderly inpatients. Methods A two-cycle retrospective cross-sectional review was conducted at a tertiary hospital in London. Electronic records of inpatients aged ≥65 admitted across two time points, one year apart, were analyzed. The first cycle assessed baseline documentation of vision assessments, defined as visual acuity (VA) or confrontational fields. Interventions included staff education sessions, distribution of visual prompts, and improved access to bedside VA tools. A re-audit was performed post-intervention to evaluate the impact. Results A total of 337 patient records were reviewed (181 pre-intervention; 156 post-intervention). Among patients admitted after a fall (n=51 pre-intervention, n=42 post-intervention), documented VA assessment increased from 7.8% to 16.7% (p=0.21), and confrontational visual field testing increased from 5.9% to 19% (p=0.061) post-intervention. While these changes did not reach statistical significance, they demonstrate a positive trend following low-cost interventions. Conclusion Visual assessments remain underperformed in elderly inpatients following a fall despite national guidance. Targeted low-cost interventions, including staff education and improved access to assessment tools, can improve compliance. Continued multidisciplinary engagement, system-level changes, and regular audit cycles are necessary to embed vision assessment as a routine component of post-fall care and to reduce fall-related harm.
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.