Pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of flooring to reduce injuries from falls in wards for older people.

BACKGROUND: falls disproportionately affect older people, who are at increased risk of falls and injury. This pilot study investigates shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injuries in wards for frail older people. METHODS: we conducted a non-blinded cluster randomised trial in eight hospitals in England between April 2010 and August 2011. Each site allocated one bay as the 'study area', which was randomised via computer to intervention (8.3-mm thick Tarkett Omnisports EXCEL) or control (2-mm standard in situ flooring). Sites had an intervention period of 1 year. Anybody admitted to the study area was eligible. The primary outcome was the fall-related injury rate. Secondary outcomes were injury severity, fall rate and adverse events. RESULTS: during the intervention period, 226 participants were recruited to each group (219 and 223 were analysed in the intervention and control group, respectively). Of 35 falls (31 fallers) in the intervention group, 22.9% were injurious, compared with 42.4% of 33 falls (22 fallers) in the control group [injury incident rate ratio (IRR) = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.18-1.91]. There were no moderate or major injuries in the intervention group and six in the control group. The fall IRR was 1.07 (95% CI = 0.64-1.81). Staff at intervention sites raised concerns about pushing equipment, documenting one pulled back. CONCLUSIONS: future research should assess shock-absorbing flooring with better 'push/pull' properties and explore increased faller risk. We estimate a future trial will need 33,480-52,840 person bed-days per arm.

Sensory environment on health-related outcomes of hospital patients.

BACKGROUND: Hospital environments have recently received renewed interest, with considerable investments into building and renovating healthcare estates. Understanding the effectiveness of environmental interventions is important for resource utilisation and providing quality care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of hospital environments on adult patient health-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (last searched January 2006); MEDLINE (1902 to December 2006); EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2006); 14 other databases covering health, psychology, and the built environment; reference lists; and organisation websites. This review is currently being updated (MEDLINE last search October 2010), see Studies awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted times series of environmental interventions in adult hospital patients reporting health-related outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment. We contacted authors to obtain missing information. For continuous variables, we calculated a mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each study. For dichotomous variables, we calculated a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). When appropriate, we used a random-effects model of meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was explored qualitatively and quantitatively based on risk of bias, case mix, hospital visit characteristics, and country of study. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, 102 studies have been included in this review. Interventions explored were: 'positive distracters', to include aromas (two studies), audiovisual distractions (five studies), decoration (one study), and music (85 studies); interventions to reduce environmental stressors through physical changes, to include air quality (three studies), bedroom type (one study), flooring (two studies), furniture and furnishings (one study), lighting (one study), and temperature (one study); and multifaceted interventions (two studies). We did not find any studies meeting the inclusion criteria to evaluate: art, access to nature for example, through hospital gardens, atriums, flowers, and plants, ceilings, interventions to reduce hospital noise, patient controls, technologies, way-finding aids, or the provision of windows. Overall, it appears that music may improve patient-reported outcomes such as anxiety; however, the benefit for physiological outcomes, and medication consumption has less support. There are few studies to support or refute the implementation of physical changes, and except for air quality, the included studies demonstrated that physical changes to the hospital environment at least did no harm. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Music may improve patient-reported outcomes in certain circumstances, so support for this relatively inexpensive intervention may be justified. For some environmental interventions, well designed research studies have yet to take place.

Care home versus hospital and own home environments for rehabilitation of older people.

BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation for older people has acquired an increasingly important profile for both policy-makers and service providers within health and social care agencies. This has generated an increased interest in the use of alternative care environments including care home environments. Yet, there appears to be limited evidence on which to base decisions.This review is the first update of the Cochrane review which was published in 2003. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of care home environments (e.g. nursing home, residential care home and nursing facilities) versus hospital environments and own home environments in the rehabilitation of older people. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Specialised Register and Pending Folder, MEDLINE (1950 to March Week 3 2007), EMBASE (1980 to 2007 Week 13), CINAHL (1982 to March, Week 4, 2007), other databases and reference lists of relevant review articles were additionally reviewed. Date of most recent search: March 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) that compared rehabilitation outcomes for persons 60 years or older who received rehabilitation whilst residing in a care home with those who received rehabilitation in hospital or own home environments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, 8365 references were retrieved. Of these, 339 abstracts were independently assessed by 2 review authors, and 56 studies and 5 review articles were subsequently obtained. Full text papers were independently assessed by two or three review authors and none of these met inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to compare the effects of care home environments versus hospital environments or own home environments on older persons rehabilitation outcomes. Although the authors acknowledge that absence of effect is not no effect. There are three main reasons; the first is that the description and specification of the environment is often not clear; secondly, the components of the rehabilitation system within the given environments are not adequately specified and; thirdly, when the components are clearly specified they demonstrate that the control and intervention sites are not comparable with respect to the methodological criteria specified by Cochrane EPOC group. The combined effect of these factors resulted in the comparability between intervention and control groups being very weak.