Who dies from venous thromboembolism after hospitalisation for other reasons in England?: a national retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally, with hospital-associated thrombosis (HAT) accounting for at least half of VTE. We set out to understand more about deaths from HAT in England, to focus improvement efforts where they are needed most. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort combining death certification and hospital activity data to identify people with an inpatient or day case hospitalisation where no VTE diagnosis was recorded, and who died from VTE in a hospital or within 90 days of discharge, between April 2017 and March 2020. SETTING: All deaths occurring in England and all National Health Service-funded hospital care in England. PARTICIPANTS: After 0.1% of cases were excluded due to duplicate but conflicting records, a cohort of 13 995 deaths remained; 54% were women, and 26% were aged under 70 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis of age, gender, primary diagnosis, type of admission, specialties and (for day cases) procedure types were preplanned. RESULTS: Only 5% of these deaths followed planned inpatient admissions. Day case admissions preceded 7% of VTE deaths. Emergency inpatient admissions, medical specialties and infection-related primary diagnoses predominated in people who died from VTE after hospitalisation where no VTE diagnosis was recorded. Most deaths occurred in a hospital or within 30 days of discharge. CONCLUSIONS: International efforts to reduce HAT historically focused on planned inpatient admissions. Further initiatives and research to prevent deaths from VTE after hospitalisation should focus on the emergency care pathway where most deaths occurred, with people undergoing day case procedures an important additional focus.

Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation.

Background: Falls are the most common safety incident reported by acute hospitals. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommends multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions, but implementation is variable. Aim: To determine how and in what contexts multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions are used in acute National Health Service hospitals in England. Design: Realist review and multisite case study. (1) Systematic searches to identify stakeholders' theories, tested using empirical data from primary studies. Review of falls prevention policies of acute Trusts. (2) Theory testing and refinement through observation, staff interviews (n = 50), patient and carer interviews (n = 31) and record review (n = 60). Setting: Three Trusts, one orthopaedic and one older person ward in each. Results: Seventy-eight studies were used for theory construction and 50 for theory testing. Four theories were explored. (1) Leadership: wards had falls link practitioners but authority to allocate resources for falls prevention resided with senior nurses. (2) Shared responsibility: a key falls prevention strategy was patient supervision. This fell to nursing staff, constraining the extent to which responsibility for falls prevention could be shared. (3) Facilitation: assessments were consistently documented but workload pressures could reduce this to a tick-box exercise. Assessment items varied. While individual patient risk factors were identified, patients were categorised as high or low risk to determine who should receive supervision. (4) Patient participation: nursing staff lacked time to explain to patients their falls risks or how to prevent themselves from falling, although other staff could do so. Sensitive communication could prevent patients taking actions that increase their risk of falling. Limitations: Within the realist review, we completed synthesis for only two theories. We could not access patient records before observations, preventing assessment of whether care plans were enacted. Conclusions: (1) Leadership: There should be a clear distinction between senior nurses' roles and falls link practitioners in relation to falls prevention; (2) shared responsibility: Trusts should consider how processes and systems, including the electronic health record, can be revised to better support a multidisciplinary approach, and alternatives to patient supervision should be considered; (3) facilitation: Trusts should consider how to reduce documentation burden and avoid tick-box responses, and ensure items included in the falls risk assessment tools align with guidance. Falls risk assessment tools and falls care plans should be presented as tools to support practice, rather than something to be audited; (4) patient participation: Trusts should consider how they can ensure patients receive individualised information about risks and preventing falls and provide staff with guidance on brief but sensitive ways to talk with patients to reduce the likelihood of actions that increase their risk of falling. Future work: (1) Development and evaluation of interventions to support multidisciplinary teams to undertake, and involve patients in, multifactorial falls risk assessment and selection and delivery of tailored interventions; (2) mixed method and economic evaluations of patient supervision; (3) evaluation of engagement support workers, volunteers and/or carers to support falls prevention. Research should include those with cognitive impairment and patients who do not speak English. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020184458. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129488) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Many accidental falls by older people in hospitals could be avoided. There are guidelines to prevent falls, but some hospitals are better at following them than others. This study aimed to find out why. First, we looked at research and hospitals' falls policies for ideas about what stops falls. With advice from service users, we tested these ideas in four hospitals in England, watching how falls were prevented on wards for older people and people who need bone care, and talking to 50 staff, 28 patients and 3 carers. We found the following: Falls leadership: wards had staff called falls link practitioners who supported falls prevention, but senior nurses, not link practitioners, made the most important decisions. Sharing responsibility: patients with falls risks were monitored to try to stop falls. Because only nursing teams were always present to monitor patients, they had most responsibility for preventing falls. This limited sharing responsibility with other staff. Computer tools: nurses used computers to record prevention work, but high workloads could make this a 'tick-box' exercise. Computer tools reminded them to do this, although tools varied. Patients had individual falls plans, but they were also ranked more generally as high or low risk of falling, with 'high-risk' patients being monitored. Patient involvement: nursing staff did not have time to explain to patients how to prevent falls, but other staff could have such conversations. Many patients had problems like dementia and found it difficult to follow safety advice, although some could take steps to keep safe, with sensitive staff support. We need to involve patients, carers and different staff in falls prevention. Hospitals could develop computer systems to support this, think how to involve more ward staff, and provide guidance on helpful ways to talk with patients about falls.

Interactions that support older inpatients with cognitive impairments to engage with falls prevention in hospitals: An ethnographic study.

AIMS: To explore the nature of interactions that enable older inpatients with cognitive impairments to engage with hospital staff on falls prevention. DESIGN: Ethnographic study. METHODS: Ethnographic observations on orthopaedic and older person wards in English hospitals (251.25 h) and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 50 staff, 28 patients and three carers. Findings were analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Interactions were often informal and personalised. Staff qualities that supported engagement in falls prevention included the ability to empathise and negotiate, taking patient perspectives into account. Although registered nurses had limited time for this, families/carers and other staff, including engagement workers, did so and passed information to nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Some older inpatients with cognitive impairments engaged with staff on falls prevention. Engagement enabled them to express their needs and collaborate, to an extent, on falls prevention activities. To support this, we recommend wider adoption in hospitals of engagement workers and developing the relational skills that underpin engagement in training programmes for patient-facing staff. IMPLICATIONS FOR PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: Interactions that support cognitively impaired inpatients to engage in falls prevention can involve not only nurses, but also families/carers and non-nursing staff, with potential to reduce pressures on busy nurses and improve patient safety. REPORTING METHOD: The paper adheres to EQUATOR guidelines, Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient/public contributors were involved in study design, evaluation and data analysis. They co-authored this manuscript.

Talking about falls: a qualitative exploration of spoken communication of patients' fall risks in hospitals and implications for multifactorial approaches to fall prevention.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient falls are the most common safety incident reported by hospitals worldwide. Traditionally, responses have been guided by categorising patients' levels of fall risk, but multifactorial approaches are now recommended. These target individual, modifiable fall risk factors, requiring clear communication between multidisciplinary team members. Spoken communication is an important channel, but little is known about its form in this context. We aim to address this by exploring spoken communication between hospital staff about fall prevention and how this supports multifactorial fall prevention practice. METHODS: Data were collected through semistructured qualitative interviews with 50 staff and ethnographic observations of fall prevention practices (251.25 hours) on orthopaedic and older person wards in four English hospitals. Findings were analysed using a framework approach. FINDINGS: We observed staff engaging in 'multifactorial talk' to address patients' modifiable risk factors, especially during multidisciplinary meetings which were patient focused rather than risk type focused. Such communication coexisted with 'categorisation talk', which focused on patients' levels of fall risk and allocating nursing supervision to 'high risk' patients. Staff negotiated tensions between these different approaches through frequent 'hybrid talk', where, as well as categorising risks, they also discussed how to modify them. CONCLUSION: To support hospitals in implementing multifactorial, multidisciplinary fall prevention, we recommend: (1) focusing on patients' individual risk factors and actions to address them (a 'why?' rather than a 'who' approach); (2) where not possible to avoid 'high risk' categorisations, employing 'hybrid' communication which emphasises actions to modify individual risk factors, as well as risk level; (3) challenging assumptions about generic interventions to identify what individual patients need; and (4) timing meetings to enable staff from different disciplines to participate.

Exploring variation in implementation of multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Falls are the most common safety incident reported by acute hospitals. In England national guidance recommends delivery of a multifactorial falls risk assessment (MFRA) and interventions tailored to address individual falls risk factors. However, there is variation in how these practices are implemented. This study aimed to explore the variation by examining what supports or constrains delivery of MFRAs and tailored interventions in acute hospitals. METHODS: A realist review of literature was conducted with searches completed in three stages: (1) to construct hypotheses in the form of Context, Mechanism, Outcome configurations (CMOc) about how MFRAs and interventions are delivered, (2) to scope the breadth and depth of evidence available in Embase to test the CMOcs, and (3) following prioritisation of CMOcs, to refine search strategies for use in multiple databases. Citations were managed in EndNote; titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened, with 10% independently screened by two reviewers. RESULTS: Two CMOcs were prioritised for testing labelled: Facilitation via MFRA tools, and Patient Participation in interventions. Analysis indicated that MFRA tools can prompt action, but the number and type of falls risk factors included in tools differ across organisations leading to variation in practice. Furthermore, the extent to which tools work as prompts is influenced by complex ward conditions such as changes in patient condition, bed swaps, and availability of falls prevention interventions. Patient participation in falls prevention interventions is more likely where patient directed messaging takes individual circumstances into account, e.g., not wanting to disturb nurses by using the call bell. However, interactions that elicit individual circumstances can be resource intensive and patients with cognitive impairment may not be able to participate despite appropriately directed messaging. CONCLUSIONS: Organisations should consider how tools can be developed in ways that better support consistent and comprehensive identification of patients' individual falls risk factors and the complex ward conditions that can disrupt how tools work as facilitators. Ward staff should be supported to deliver patient directed messaging that is informed by their individual circumstances to encourage participation in falls prevention interventions, where appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020184458.

Designing health IT to support falls prevention in hospitals: Findings from a realist review.

Inpatient falls are an international patient safety concern, accounting for 30-40% of reported safety incidents in acute hospitals. They can cause both physical (e.g. hip fractures) and non-physical harm (e.g. reduced confidence) to patients. We used an approach known as a realist review to identify theories about what interventions might work for whom in what contexts, focusing on what supports and constrains effective use of multifactorial falls risk assessment and falls prevention interventions. One of these theories suggested that staff will integrate recommended practices into their work routines if falls risk assessment tools, including health IT, are quick and easy to use and facilitate existing work routines. Synthesis of empirical studies undertaken in the process of testing and refining this theory has implications for the design of health IT, suggesting that while health IT can support falls prevention through automation, such tools should also allow for incorporation of clinical judgement.

What supports and constrains the implementation of multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored multifactorial falls prevention interventions in acute hospitals? Protocol for a realist review.

INTRODUCTION: Falls are the most common type of safety incident reported by acute hospitals and can cause both physical (eg, hip fractures) and non-physical harm (eg, reduced confidence) to patients. It is recommended that, in order to prevent falls in hospital, patients should receive a multifactorial falls risk assessment and be provided with a multifactorial intervention, tailored to address the patient's identified individual risk factors. It is estimated that such an approach could reduce the incidence of inpatient falls by 25%-30% and reduce the annual cost of falls by up to 25%. However, there is substantial unexplained variation between hospitals in the number and type of assessments undertaken and interventions implemented. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist review will be undertaken to construct and test programme theories regarding (1) what supports and constrains the implementation of multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored multifactorial falls prevention interventions in acute hospitals; and (2) how, why, in what contexts and for whom tailored multifactorial falls prevention interventions lead to a reduction in patients' falls risk. We will first identify stakeholders' theories concerning these two topics, searching Medline (1946-present) and Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Health Management Information Consortium (1983-present) and CINAHL (1981-present). We will then test these theories systematically, using primary studies to determine whether empirical evidence supports, refutes or suggests a revision or addition to the identified theories. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study does not require ethical approval. The review will provide evidence for how to implement multifactorial falls risk assessment and prevention strategies in acute hospital settings. This will be disseminated to academic and clinical audiences and will provide the basis for a future multi-site study through which the theories will be further refined. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020184458.

A review of guidelines to distinguish between gastric and pulmonary placement of nasogastric tubes.

The purpose of this review was to (1) identify areas of agreement and disagreement in guidelines/recommendations to distinguish between gastric and pulmonary placement of nasogastric tube and (2) summarize factors that affect choices made by clinicians regarding which method(s) to use in specific situations. Systematic searches were conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus databases using a combination of keywords and data-specific subject headings. Searches were limited to guidelines/recommendations from national level specialty groups and governmental sources published in the English language between January 1, 2015 and September 20, 2018. Fourteen guidelines that described methods to distinguish between gastric and pulmonary placement of nasogastric tubes were identified from a variety of geographic locations. Tube placement testing methods included in the review were: radiography, respiratory distress, aspirate appearance, aspirate pH, auscultation, carbon dioxide detection and enteral access devices. All fourteen guidelines agreed that radiography is the most accurate testing method. Of the nonradiographic methods, pH testing was most favored; least favored was auscultation.

Patient safety's missing link: using clinical expertise to recognize, respond to and reduce risks at a population level.

INTRODUCTION: Although incident reporting systems are widespread in health care as a strategy to reduce harm to patients, the focus has been on reporting incidents rather than responding to them. Systems containing large numbers of incidents are uniquely placed to raise awareness of, and then characterize and respond to infrequent, but significant risks. The aim of this paper is to outline a framework for the surveillance of such risks, their systematic analysis, and for the development and dissemination of population-based preventive and corrective strategies using clinical and human factors expertise. REQUIREMENTS FOR A POPULATION-LEVEL RESPONSE: The framework outlines four system requirements: to report incidents; to aggregate them; to support and conduct a risk surveillance, review and response process; and to disseminate recommendations. Personnel requirements include a non-hierarchical multidisciplinary team comprising clinicians and subject-matter and human factors experts to provide interpretation and high-level judgement from a range of perspectives. The risk surveillance, review and response process includes searching of large incident and other databases for how and why things have gone wrong, narrative analysis by clinical experts, consultation with the health care sector, and development and pilot testing of corrective strategies. Criteria for deciding which incidents require a population-level response are outlined. DISCUSSION: The incremental cost of a population-based response function is modest compared with the 'reporting' element. Combining clinical and human factors expertise and a systematic approach underpins the creation of credible risk identification processes and the development of preventive and corrective strategies.

Learning from preventable deaths: exploring case record reviewers' narratives using change analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if applying change analysis to the narrative reports made by reviewers of hospital deaths increases the utility of this information in the systematic analysis of patient harm. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of causes and contributory factors underlying patient harm in 52 case narratives linked to preventable deaths derived from a retrospective case record review of 1000 deaths in acute National Health Service Trusts in 2009. PARTICIPANTS: 52 preventable hospital deaths. SETTING: England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The nature of problems in care and contributory factors underlying avoidable deaths in hospital. RESULTS: The change analysis approach enabled explicit characterisation of multiple problems in care, both across the admission and also at the boundary between primary and secondary care, and illuminated how these problems accumulate to cause harm. It demonstrated links between problems and underlying contributory factors and highlighted other threats to quality of care such as standards of end of life management. The method was straightforward to apply to multiple records and achieved good inter-rater reliability. CONCLUSION: Analysis of case narratives using change analysis provided a richer picture of healthcare-related harm than the traditional approach, unpacking the nature of the problems, particularly by delineating omissions from acts of commission, thus facilitating more tailored responses to patient harm.

Relationship between preventable hospital deaths and other measures of safety: an exploratory study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore associations between the proportion of hospital deaths that are preventable and other measures of safety. DESIGN: Retrospective case record review to provide estimates of preventable death proportions. Simple monotonic correlations using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to establish the relationship with eight other measures of patient safety. SETTING: Ten English acute hospital trusts. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand patients who died during 2009. RESULTS: The proportion of preventable deaths varied between hospitals (3-8%) but was not statistically significant (P = 0.94). Only one of the eight measures of safety (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia rate) was clinically and statistically significantly associated with preventable death proportion (r = 0.73; P < 0.02). There were no significant associations with the other measures including hospital standardized mortality ratios (r = -0.01). There was a suggestion that preventable deaths may be more strongly associated with some other measures of outcome than with process or with structure measures. CONCLUSIONS: The exploratory nature of this study inevitably limited its power to provide definitive results. The observed relationships between safety measures suggest that a larger more powerful study is needed to establish the inter-relationship of different measures of safety (structure, process and outcome), in particular the widely used standardized mortality ratios.

Falls prevention in hospitals and mental health units: an extended evaluation of the FallSafe quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: inpatient falls are a major patient safety issue causing distress, injury and death. Systematic review suggests multifactorial assessment and intervention can reduce falls by 20-30%, but large-scale studies of implementation are few. This paper describes an extended evaluation of the FallSafe quality improvement project, which presented key components of multifactorial assessment and intervention as a care bundle. METHODS: : data on delivery of falls prevention processes were collected at baseline and for 18 months from nine FallSafe units and nine control units. Data on falls were collected from local risk management systems for 24 months, and data on under-reporting through staff surveys. RESULTS: : in FallSafe units, delivery of seven care bundle components significantly improved; most improvements were sustained after active project support was withdrawn. Twelve-month moving average of reported fall rates showed a consistent downward trend in FallSafe units but not controls. Significant reductions in reported fall rate were found in FallSafe units (adjusted rate ratio (ARR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.84 P < 0.001) in the 12 months following full implementation but not in control units (ARR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81-1.03 P = 0.13). No significant changes in injurious fall rate were found in FallSafe units (ARR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.03 P = 0.11), or controls (ARR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72-1.08 P = 0.13). In FallSafe units, staff certain falls had been reported increased from 60 to 77%. CONCLUSION: : introducing evidence-based care bundles of multifactorial assessment and intervention using a quality improvement approach resulted in improved delivery of multifactorial assessment and intervention and significant reductions in fall rates, but not in injurious fall rates.

A pragmatic study of the predictive values of the Morse falls score.

BACKGROUND: inpatient falls are an important safety challenge, with around half causing physical injuries that compromise the recovery of older, frailer patients. Falls risk scores are in widespread use, but validation studies of their predictive values are few. OBJECTIVES: to assess the predictive values of the Morse falls score (MFS) in an acute general hospital. METHODS: age, admitting speciality, MFS, and any falls in the subsequent 7 days were collected in April 2011 through case note review and incident reporting systems. RESULTS: a total of 467 inpatients were included in the study; 51% were aged 75+ years; 56% had an MFS ≥25; 23% had an MFS ≥55; 28 fell. An MFS ≥25 was not significantly better than chance in the total sample or in any subgroups considered (YI: -0.01 to 0.15). An MFS ≥55 was significantly better than chance for the total sample (YI: 0.39), patients ≥75 years (YI: 0.31) and geriatrician-led wards (YI 0.37), although either sensitivity or specificity fell below 70% in each of these groups. Other subgroups did not demonstrate significantly better accuracy than chance, but may have been affected by type II error. CONCLUSIONS: using MFS ≥25 cannot be clinically justified, while using MFS ≥55 would be contingent on an effective intervention that was ethically acceptable to withhold from the patients with an MFS < 55, despite >40% of falls occurring in that group. Given similar limitations of alternative falls risk scores, hospitals should consider directly assessing and acting on individual patients' specific modifiable risk factors for falls.

Which bed designs and patient characteristics increase bed rail use?

BACKGROUND: the design and use of bed rails has been contentious since the 1950s with benefits including safety, mobility support and access to bed controls and disadvantages associated with entrapment and restraint. OBJECTIVE: to explore which bed designs and patient characteristics (mobility, cognitive status and age) influence the likelihood of rails being used on UK medical wards. METHOD: the use of rails was surveyed overnight at 18 hospitals between July 2010 and February 2011. RESULTS: data were collected on 2,219 beds with 1,799 included (occupied). Eighty-six percent had rails attached; 52% had raised rails (42% had all raised). Adjusted logistic regression results suggest a significantly increased likelihood of rail use for (i) electric profiling beds and ultra low beds; (ii) >80 years; (iii) described as having any level of confusion or mobility impairment. These variables together explained 55% of the variance in rail use. The most frequently mentioned reason for raising rails was 'to prevent falls from the bed' (61%) especially for patients described as confused (75%). CONCLUSION: there were indications that rails were being used inappropriately (as a restraint) for both confused patients and those needing assistance to mobilise.

Changes in falls prevention policies in hospital in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: in 2007, the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) published 'Slips trips and falls in hospital' and 'Using bedrails safely and effectively'. OBJECTIVES: this observational study aimed to identify changes in local policies in hospitals in England and Wales following these publications. METHOD: policies in place during 2006 and 2009 were requested from 50 randomly selected acute hospital trusts and their content was categorised by a single reviewer using defined criteria. RESULTS: thirty-seven trusts responded. Trusts with an inpatient falls prevention policy increased from 65 to 100%, the use of unreferenced numerical falls risk assessments reduced from 50 to 19%, and trusts with a bedrail policy increased from 49 to 89%. It was concerning to find that by 2009 advice on clinical checks after a fall was available in only 51% of trusts, and only 46% of trust policies included specific guidance on avoiding bedrail entrapment gaps. CONCLUSIONS: the observed changes in policy content were likely to have been influenced not only by the NPSA publications but also by contemporaneous publications from the Royal College of Physicians' National Audit of Falls and Bone Health, and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Most areas of local policy indicated substantial improvement, but further improvements are required.