Cost of Inpatient Falls and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Implementation of an Evidence-Based Fall Prevention Program.

Importance: There is insufficient research on the costs of patient falls in health care systems, a leading source of nonreimbursable adverse events. Objective: To report the costs of inpatient falls and the cost savings associated with implementation of an evidence-based fall prevention program. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a matched case-control study used the findings from an interrupted time series analysis that assessed changes in fall rates following implementation of an evidence-based fall prevention program to understand the cost of inpatient falls. An economic analysis was then performed to assess the cost benefits associated with program implementation across 2 US health care systems from June 1, 2013, to August 31, 2019, in New York, New York, and Boston, Massachusetts. All adults hospitalized in participating units were included in the analysis. Data analysis was performed from October 2021 to November 2022. Interventions: Evidence-based fall prevention program implemented in 33 medical and surgical units in 8 hospitals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was cost of inpatient falls. Secondary outcome was the costs and cost savings associated with the evidence-based fall prevention program. Results: A total of 10 176 patients who had a fall event (injurious or noninjurious) with 29 161 matched controls (no fall event) were included in the case-control study and the economic analysis (51.9% were 65-74 years of age, 67.1% were White, and 53.6% were male). Before the intervention, there were 2503 falls and 900 injuries; after the intervention, there were 2078 falls and 758 injuries. Based on a 19% reduction in falls and 20% reduction in injurious falls from the beginning to the end of the postintervention period, the economic analysis demonstrated that noninjurious and injurious falls were associated with cost increases of $35 365 and $36 776, respectively. The implementation of the evidence-based fall prevention program was associated with $14 600 in net avoided costs per 1000 patient-days. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation found that fall-related adverse events represented a clinical and financial burden to health care systems and that the current Medicare policy limits reimbursement. In this study, costs of falls only differed marginally by injury level. Policies that incentivize organizations to implement evidence-based strategies that reduce the incidence of all falls may be effective in reducing both harm and costs.

Development and Validation of a Fall Prevention Efficiency Scale.

OBJECTIVES: Fall TIPS (Tailoring Interventions for Patient Safety) is an evidence-based fall prevention program that led to a 25% reduction in falls in hospitalized adults. Because it would be helpful to assess nurses' perceptions of burdens imposed on them by using Fall TIPS or other fall prevention program, we conducted a study to learn benefits and burdens. METHODS: A 3-phase mixed-method study was conducted at 3 hospitals in Massachusetts and 3 in New York: (1) initial qualitative, elicited and categorized nurses' views of time spent implementing Fall TIPS; (2) second qualitative, used nurses' quotes to develop items, research team inputs for refinement and organization, and clinical nurses' evaluation and suggestions to develop the prototype scale; and (3) quantitative, evaluated psychometric properties. RESULTS: Four "time" themes emerged: (1) efficiency, (2) inefficiency, (3) balances out, and (4) valued. A 20-item prototype Fall Prevention Efficiency Scale was developed, administered to 383 clinical nurses, and reduced to 13 items. Individual items demonstrated robust stability with Pearson correlations of 0.349 to 0.550 and paired t tests of 0.155 to 1.636. Four factors explained 74.3% variance and provided empirical support for the scale's conceptual basis. The scale achieved excellent internal consistency values (0.82-0.92) when examined with the test, validation, and paired (both test and retest) samples. CONCLUSIONS: This new scale assess nurses' perceptions of how a fall prevention program affects their efficiency, which impacts the likelihood of use. Learning nurses' beliefs about time wasted when implementing new programs allows hospitals to correct problems that squander time.

Use of a perceived efficacy tool to evaluate the FallTIPS program.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To assess nurses' opinions of the efficacy of using the FallTIPS (Tailoring Interventions for Patient Safety) fall prevention program. DESIGN: Survey research. SETTING: Seven adult acute-care hospitals in 2 hospital centers located in Boston and NYC. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 298 medical-surgical nurses on 14 randomly selected units. INTERVENTION: Three-step FallTIPS fall prevention program that had been in use as a clinical program for a minimum of 2 years in each hospital. MEASUREMENTS: Fall Prevention Efficiency Scale (FPES), range 13-52; four-factorilly derived subscales: valued, efficiency, balances out and inefficiency; and 13 psychometrically validated individual items. RESULTS: Nurses perceived the FallTIPS fall prevention program to be efficacious. The FPES mean score of 38.55 (SD = 5.05) and median of 39 were well above the lowest possible score of 13 and scale midpoint of 32.5. Most nurses (N = 270, 90.6%) scored above 33. There were no differences in FPES scores between nurses who had only used FallTIPS and nurses who had previously used a different fall prevention program. CONCLUSION: The nurses who used FallTIPS perceived that efficiencies in patient care compensated for the time spent on FallTIPS. Nurses valued the program and findings confirmed the importance of patient and family engagement with staff in the fall prevention process. Regardless of the fall prevention program used, organizations should examine staff perceptions of their fall prevention program because programs that are not perceived as being useful, efficient, and valuable will lead to nonadherence over time and then will not reduce falls and injuries. The recently developed FPES used in this study is a brief tool available for organizations to assess nurses' perceptions of the efficacy of their fall prevention program. Additional FPES research is needed with larger and more diverse samples.

Evaluation of a Patient-Centered Fall-Prevention Tool Kit to Reduce Falls and Injuries: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Falls represent a leading cause of preventable injury in hospitals and a frequently reported serious adverse event. Hospitalization is associated with an increased risk for falls and serious injuries including hip fractures, subdural hematomas, or even death. Multifactorial strategies have been shown to reduce falls in acute care hospitals, but evidence for fall-related injury prevention in hospitals is lacking. Objective: To assess whether a fall-prevention tool kit that engages patients and families in the fall-prevention process throughout hospitalization is associated with reduced falls and injurious falls. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized controlled trial using stepped wedge design was conducted between November 1, 2015, and October 31, 2018, in 14 medical units within 3 academic medical centers in Boston and New York City. All adult inpatients hospitalized in participating units were included in the analysis. Interventions: A nurse-led fall-prevention tool kit linking evidence-based preventive interventions to patient-specific fall risk factors and designed to integrate continuous patient and family engagement in the fall-prevention process. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate of patient falls per 1000 patient-days in targeted units during the study period. The secondary outcome was the rate of falls with injury per 1000 patient-days. Results: During the interrupted time series, 37 231 patients were evaluated, including 17 948 before the intervention (mean [SD] age, 60.56 [18.30] years; 9723 [54.17%] women) and 19 283 after the intervention (mean [SD] age, 60.92 [18.10] years; 10 325 [53.54%] women). There was an overall adjusted 15% reduction in falls after implementation of the fall-prevention tool kit compared with before implementation (2.92 vs 2.49 falls per 1000 patient-days [95% CI, 2.06-3.00 falls per 1000 patient-days]; adjusted rate ratio 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96; P = .01) and an adjusted 34% reduction in injurious falls (0.73 vs 0.48 injurious falls per 1000 patient-days [95% CI, 0.34-0.70 injurious falls per 1000 patient-days]; adjusted rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.88; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized controlled trial, implementation of a fall-prevention tool kit was associated with a significant reduction in falls and related injuries. A patient-care team partnership appears to be beneficial for prevention of falls and fall-related injuries. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02969343.

Classification of Injurious Fall Severity in Hospitalized Adults.

BACKGROUND: Many hospital systems in the United States report injurious inpatient falls using the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators categories: None, Minor, Moderate, Major, and Death. The Major category is imprecise, including injuries ranging from a wrist fracture to potentially fatal subdural hematoma. The purpose of this project was to refine the Major injury classification to derive a valid and reliable categorization of the types and severities of Major inpatient fall-related injuries. METHODS: Based on published literature and ranking of injurious fall incident reports (n = 85) from a large Academic Medical Center, we divided the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators Major category into three subcategories: Major A-injuries that caused temporary functional impairment (eg, wrist fracture), major facial injury without internal injury (eg, nasal bone fracture), or disruption of a surgical wound; Major B-injuries that caused long-term functional impairment or had the potential risk of increased mortality (eg, multiple rib fractures); and Major C-injuries that had a well-established risk of mortality (eg, hip fracture). Based on the literature and expert opinion, our research team reached consensus on an administration manual to promote accurate classification of Major injuries into one of the three subcategories. RESULTS: The team tested and validated each of the categories which resulted in excellent interrater reliability (kappa = .96). Of the Major injuries, the distribution of Major A, B, and C was 40.3%, 16.1%, and 43.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These subcategories enhance the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators categorization. Using the administration manual, trained personnel can classify injurious fall severity with excellent reliability.

Development and Validation of a Fall Prevention Knowledge Test.

Falls are a serious, persistent problem in hospitals. Ensuring that all hospital staff have adequate knowledge of how to prevent falls is the first step in prevention. We identified validated fall prevention knowledge tests (FPKTs) and planned to conduct a systematic literature review. When the review identified a lack of FPKTs, we developed and evaluated a FPKT, confirmed its conceptual framework, identified the content domain, drafted test items, devised the format, selected items for empirical examination, and conducted a psychometric evaluation. We randomly divided a 209-subject data set into test and validation samples to make item reduction decisions and examine reliability and validity. The typical respondent was a white, 42-year old female nurse with a bachelor's degree and 7 years' experience. Subjects were confident in their ability to prevent falls, rating themselves an 8 on a self-efficacy scale of 1 (not at all) to 10 (very). The 11-item FPKT scale (range 0-11) attained a tetrachoric coefficient of 0.73, confirming initial reliability. FPKT mean scores obtained before and after fall prevention education improved from 5.1 ± 1.8 to 6.6 ± 1.7. Statistically significant differences (paired t-test = 12.4, p < .001) confirmed validity. A robust way to assess nurses' knowledge of fall prevention is needed to inform effective educational programs. Addressing gaps in validated FPKTs provides an opportunity to inform and evaluate effective fall prevention programs. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:133-138, 2019.

The Case for Mobility Assessment in Hospitalized Older Adults: American Geriatrics Society White Paper Executive Summary.

Mobility can be defined as the ability to move or be moved freely and easily. In older adults, mobility impairments are common and associated with risk for additional loss of function. Mobility loss is particularly common in these individuals during acute illness and hospitalization, and it is associated with poor outcomes, including loss of muscle mass and strength, long hospital stays, falls, declines in activities of daily living, decline in community mobility and social participation, and nursing home placement. Thus, mobility loss can have a large effect on an older adult's health, independence, and quality of life. Nevertheless, despite its importance, loss of mobility is not a widely recognized outcome of hospital care, and few hospitals routinely assess mobility and intervene to improve mobility during hospital stays. The Quality and Performance Measurement Committee of the American Geriatrics Society has developed a white paper supporting greater focus on mobility as an outcome for hospitalized older adults. The executive summary presented here focuses on assessing and preventing mobility loss in older adults in the hospital and summarizes the recommendations from that white paper. The full version of the white paper is available as Text S1. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:11-16, 2019.

Early hospital readmission of nursing home residents and community-dwelling elderly adults discharged from the geriatrics service of an urban teaching hospital: patterns and risk factors.

OBJECTIVES: To compare rates and risk factors for early hospital readmission for nursing home residents and community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Geriatric inpatient service at a large urban hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Nursing home residents (n=625) and community-dwelling individuals (n=413) aged 65 and older admitted over a 1-year period. MEASUREMENTS: Thirty-day readmissions. RESULTS: There were 1,706 hospital admissions within the 1-year study period involving 1,038 individuals. The 30-day readmission rate was higher for subjects discharged to a nursing home than those discharged to the community (34.4% vs 22.6%, P<.001). Chronic kidney disease and pressure ulcers were associated with greater risk of readmission in both groups. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was a risk factor for readmission only in community-dwelling individuals. Congestive heart failure and dementia were associated with greater risk of readmission only in nursing home residents. Readmission rates varied between individual nursing homes by more than a factor of 2. Risk of readmission was 30% lower in nursing home residents cared for by hospitalist than nonhospitalist geriatricians. CONCLUSION: Higher rates of hospital readmission for individuals discharged to nursing homes than to the community and differing patterns of risk factors for readmission indicate the importance of customized interventions to reduce readmission rates for two distinct elderly populations.

Older adults with heel ulcers in the acute care setting: frequency of noninvasive vascular assessment, surgical intervention, and 1-year mortality.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how often hospitalized older adults with a diagnosis of heel ulcers are evaluated with noninvasive vascular tests and to determine the impact of invasive vascular or surgical procedures on 1-year mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective review using an electronic database and chart review of all patients discharged with a diagnosis of heel ulcer between 2006 and 2009. SETTING: Urban teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 506 participants aged 65 years and older. MEASUREMENTS: Data collected included resident characteristics (demographics, medical history, and severity of illness using the Charlson comorbidity index), staging of heel ulcers, rates of noninvasive vascular assessments, vascular and surgical procedures, length of stay, and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent (155/506) of patients with a heel ulcer underwent noninvasive vascular testing and of these 83% (129/155) were found to have underlying ischemia. Twenty-six percent (130/506) of patients underwent at least 1 vascular or surgical procedure. The 1-year mortality rate for patients with stage 1 or 2 disease was 55%; this rose to 70% for patients with stage 3 or 4 ulcers (P = .01), and could not be explained by differences in the Charlson comorbidity index. Patients who underwent a vascular or surgical procedure had a significantly lower mortality compared with those who did not (59% vs 68% P = .04). CONCLUSION: Older adults with a heel ulcer in the acute care setting are frequently not assessed for underlying ischemia of the lower extremities. The diagnosis carries high 1-year mortality rates. Evidence-based protocols need to be developed to determine which older adults should have a vascular assessment and then undergo an invasive procedure.