Cost--utility analysis of a shock-absorbing floor intervention to prevent injuries from falls in hospital wards for older people.

BACKGROUND: hospital falls place a substantial burden on healthcare systems. There has been limited research into the use of hospital flooring as an intervention against fall-related injuries. OBJECTIVE: to assess the cost-effectiveness of shock-absorbing flooring compared with standard hospital flooring in hospital wards for older people. DESIGN: a cost-utility analysis was undertaken drawing upon data collected in a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial and the wider literature. SETTING: the trial included eight hospital sites across England. Four sites installed shock-absorbing flooring in one bay, and four maintained their standard flooring. MEASUREMENTS: falls and resulting injuries and treatment were reported by hospital staff. Data on destination of discharge were collected. Patients were followed up at 3 months and further resource use data were collected. Health-related quality of life was assessed, allowing quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to be estimated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the shock-absorbing flooring was assessed compared with the standard hospital flooring. RESULTS: in the base case, the shock-absorbing flooring was cost saving, but generated QALY losses due to an increase in the faller rate reported in the intervention arm. Scenario analysis showed that if the shock-absorbing flooring does not increase the faller rate it is likely to represent a dominant economic strategy-generating cost savings and QALY gains. CONCLUSION: the shock-absorbing flooring intervention has the potential to be cost-effective but further research is required on whether the intervention flooring results in a higher faller rate than standard flooring.

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.

Pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of flooring to reduce injuries from falls in elderly care units: study protocol.

UNLABELLED: Falls are an issue disproportionately affecting older people who are at increased risk of falls and injury. This protocol describes a pilot study investigating shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injuries in wards for older people. OBJECTIVES: To inform future research by evaluating fall-related injuries on the intervention and existing flooring, assessing the sustainability of the flooring in ward environments, estimating the cost-effectiveness of the floor and assessing how the floor affects patients and other users. DESIGN: This study uses mixed methods a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial, observation via mechanical testing and interviews. Eight participating wards (clusters) are randomised using a computer-generated list. No blinding is incorporated into the study. Each site has a baseline period of approximately 6 months. Then, four sites receive the intervention floor, while four continue using standard floors. Sites are then followed up for approximately 1 year. PARTICIPANTS: Any person admitted to a bed in the 'study area' of a participating ward can be entered into the trial. Orientated patients, visitors and any hospital staff who use the floor in a study area are eligible for inclusion in an interview. INTERVENTION: An 8.3 mm thick vinyl floor covering with polyvinyl chloride foam backing (Tarkett Omnisports EXCEL). OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is fall-related injuries. Severity of injuries, falls, cost-effectiveness, user views and mechanical performance (shock absorbency and slip resistance) are also being assessed.

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.