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.

Pressure Injury Development, Mitigation, and Outcomes of Patients Proned for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To describe trends and risk factors for pressure injuries (PIs) in adult critical care patients proned to alleviate acute respiratory distress syndrome secondary to COVID-19 and examine the effectiveness of products and strategies used to mitigate PIs. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective chart review between April 9 and June 8, 2020. Demographic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Differences between groups with and without PIs were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 147 patients, significant PI risk factors included male sex (P = .019), high body mass index (>40 kg/m2; P = .020), low Braden Scale score (<12; P = .018), and low-dose vasopressor therapy (P = .020). Taping endotracheal tubes (ETTs) caused significantly fewer facial PIs than commercial ETT holders (P < .0001). Maximum prone duration/session was a significant risk factor for anterior PIs (P = .016), which dropped 71% with newer pressure redistribution products. d-Dimer greater than 3,200 µg/mL (P = .042) was a significant risk factor for sacrococcygeal PIs while supine. Mortality was 30%; significant risk factors included age older than 60 years (P = .005), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score greater than 11 (P = .003), and comorbid congestive heart failure (P = .016). CONCLUSIONS: Taping the ETT, limiting the maximum duration of prone positioning to less than 32 hours, and frequent repositioning while supine may reduce the number of modifiable risk factors for PIs. Standardized methods for testing products for PI prevention will inform individualized patient care.

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.

Development of a Prone Team and Exploration of Staff Perceptions During COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: As intensive care unit bed capacity doubled because of COVID-19 cases, nursing leaders created a prone team to support labor-intensive prone positioning of patients with COVID-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. The goal of the prone team was to reduce workload on intensive care teams, standardize the proning process, mitigate pressure injuries and turning-related adverse events, and ensure prone team safety. METHODS: Staff were trained using a hybrid learning model focused on prone-positioning techniques, pressure injury prevention, and turning-related adverse events. RESULTS: No adverse events occurred to patients or members of the prone team. The prone team mitigated pressure injuries using prevention strategies. The prone team and intensive care unit staff were highly satisfied with their experience. CONCLUSION: The prone team provided support for critically ill patients, and team members reported feeling supported and empowered. Intensive care unit staff were highly satisfied with the prone team.