Hospital falls clinical practice guidelines: a global analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hospital falls continue to be a persistent global issue with serious harmful consequences for patients and health services. Many clinical practice guidelines now exist for hospital falls, and there is a need to appraise recommendations. METHOD: A systematic review and critical appraisal of the global literature was conducted, compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, Infobase of Clinical Practice Guidelines, Cochrane CENTRAL and PEDro databases were searched from 1 January 1993 to 1 February 2024. The quality of guidelines was assessed by two independent reviewers using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Global Rating Scale and Appraisal of Guidelines of Research and Evaluation Recommendation Excellence (AGREE-REX). Certainty of findings was rated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research. Data were analysed using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: 2404 records were screened, 77 assessed for eligibility, and 20 hospital falls guidelines were included. Ten had high AGREE-REX quality scores. Key analytic themes were as follows: (i) there was mixed support for falls risk screening at hospital admission, but scored screening tools were no longer recommended; (ii) comprehensive falls assessment was recommended for older or frail patients; (iii) single and multifactorial falls interventions were consistently recommended; (iv) a large gap existed in patient engagement in guideline development and implementation; (v) barriers to implementation included ambiguities in how staff and patient falls education should be conducted, how delirium and dementia are managed to prevent falls, and documentation of hospital falls. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based hospital falls guidelines are now available, yet systematic implementation across the hospital sector is more limited. There is a need to ensure an integrated and consistent approach to evidence-based falls prevention for a diverse range of hospital patients.

Preventing hospital falls: feasibility of care workforce redesign to optimise patient falls education.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility of using allied health assistants to deliver patient falls prevention education within 48 h after hospital admission. DESIGN AND SETTING: Feasibility study with hospital patients randomly allocated to usual care or usual care plus additional patient falls prevention education delivered by supervised allied health assistants using an evidence-based scripted conversation and educational pamphlet. PARTICIPANTS: (i) allied health assistants and (ii) patients admitted to participating hospital wards over a 20-week period. OUTCOMES: (i) feasibility of allied health assistant delivery of patient education; (ii) hospital falls per 1,000 bed days; (iii) injurious falls; (iv) number of falls requiring transfer to an acute medical facility. RESULTS: 541 patients participated (median age 81 years); 270 control group and 271 experimental group. Allied health assistants (n = 12) delivered scripted education sessions to 254 patients in the experimental group, 97% within 24 h after admission. There were 32 falls in the control group and 22 in the experimental group. The falls rate was 8.07 falls per 1,000 bed days in the control group and 5.69 falls per 1,000 bed days for the experimental group (incidence rate ratio = 0.66 (95% CI 0.32, 1.36; P = 0.26)). There were 2.02 injurious falls per 1,000 bed days for the control group and 1.03 for the experimental group. Nine falls (7 control, 2 experimental) required transfer to an acute facility. No adverse events were attributable to the experimental group intervention. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible and of benefit to supplement usual care with patient education delivered by allied health assistants.

Factors Impacting Retention of Aged Care Workers: A Systematic Review.

Retention of care support workers in residential aged care facilities and home-based, domiciliary aged care is a global challenge, with rapid turnover, low job satisfaction, and poorly defined career pathways. A mixed-methods systematic review of the workforce literature was conducted to understand the factors that attract and retain care staff across the aged care workforce. The search yielded 49 studies. Three studies tested education and training interventions with the aim of boosting workforce retention and the remaining 46 studies explored opinions and experiences of care workers in 20 quantitative, four mixed-methods and 22 qualitative studies. A range of factors impacted retention of aged care staff. Two broad themes emerged from the analysis: individual and organisational factors facilitating retention. Individual factors related to personal satisfaction with the role, positive relationships with other staff, families, and residents, and a cooperative workplace culture. Organisational factors included opportunities for on-the-job training and career development, appropriate wages, policies to prevent workplace injuries, and job stability. Understaffing was often cited as a factor associated with turnover, together with heavy workloads, stress, and low job satisfaction. With global concerns about the safety and quality of aged care services, this study presents the data associated with best practice for retaining aged care workers.

Patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Codesign strengthens partnerships between healthcare workers and patients. It also facilitates collaborations supporting the development, design and delivery of healthcare services. Prior rehabilitation reviews have focused mainly on the clinical and organisational outcomes of codesign with less focus on the lived experience of rehabilitation patients. OBJECTIVE: To explore patient experiences of codesigned hospital rehabilitation interventions. DESIGN: Rapid review and evidence synthesis of the literature. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane were searched from 1 January 2000 to 25 April 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals. RESULTS: 4156 studies were screened, and 38 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. Seven studies were included in the final rapid review. Five out of the seven studies involved neurological rehabilitation. All eligible studies used qualitative research methods. The main barriers to codesign were related to staffing and dedicated time allocated to face-to-face patient-therapist interactions. High-quality relationships between patients and their therapists were a facilitator of codesign. Thematic synthesis revealed that codesigned rehabilitation interventions can enable a meaningful experience for patients and facilitate tailoring of treatments to align with individual needs. Personalised rehabilitation increases patient involvement in rehabilitation planning, delivery and decision-making. It also promotes positive feelings of empowerment and hope. CONCLUSION: This rapid review supports the implementation of codesigned rehabilitation interventions to improve patient experiences in hospitals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021264547.

Patient experiences of co-designed rehabilitation interventions: protocol for a rapid review.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-centred care can be facilitated by co-design, which refers to collaboration between healthcare professionals and consumers in producing and implementing healthcare. Systematic reviews on co-design have mainly focused on the effectiveness of co-produced healthcare interventions. Less attention has been directed towards the experiences of patients in co-designed interventions. This rapid review aims to explore patient experiences of co-designed rehabilitation interventions and inform rehabilitation decision-making. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A rapid review will expedite timely information on co-design experiences for stakeholders. Four electronic databases, including Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL, will be searched for papers published from 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2022. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used for randomised trials. Critical appraisal checklists from The Joanna Briggs Institute shall evaluate the risk of bias of non-randomised trials and qualitative studies. A narrative synthesis will be provided for the quantitative studies. Thematic synthesis will be conducted on qualitative findings. The overall strength of the evidence will be measured using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework for quantitative investigations and the GRADE-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research for qualitative studies. The results will be presented using narrative summaries, identified themes, summary tables, flow charts and quantitative statistical analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for the review. The protocol and rapid review will be submitted to an online, open access and peer-reviewed journal for publication. The review findings will be rapidly translated to consumers, clinicians, healthcare leaders, organisations, researchers and policy makers via publications, evidence summaries, conferences, workshops, websites, social media and online events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021264547.