RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To identify and quantify risk factors for in-hospital falls in medical patients. DATA SOURCES: Six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Google Scholar) were systematically screened until April 11, 2023, to identify relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: All titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles were independently screened by 2 researchers who also read the full texts of the remaining articles. Quantitative studies that assessed risk factors for falls among adult patients acutely hospitalized were included in the review. Publications that did not capture internal medicine patients or focused on other specific populations were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on study characteristics and potential risk factors were systematically extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed for reporting. DATA SYNTHESIS: The main outcome was any in-hospital falls. Using a random-effects meta-analysis model, association measures for each risk factor reported in 5 or more studies were pooled. Separate analyses according to effect measure and studies adjusted for sex and age at least were performed. Of 5067 records retrieved, 119 original publications from 25 countries were included. In conclusion, 23 potential risk factors were meta-analyzed. Strong evidence with large effect sizes was found for a history of falls (odds ratio [OR], 2.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63-3.96; I2, 91%), antidepressants (pooled OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.92-2.65; I2, 0%), benzodiazepines (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.68-2.31; I2, 0%), hypnotics-sedatives (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.53-2.36; I2, 46%), and antipsychotics (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33-1.95; I2, 0%). Furthermore, evidence of associations with male sex (OR, 1.22, 95% CI, 0.99-1.50; I2, 65%) and age (OR, 1.17, 95% CI, 1.02-1.35; I2, 72%) were found, but effect sizes were small. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive list of risk factors, which specifies the strength of evidence and effect sizes, could assist in the prioritization of preventive measures and interventions.
RESUMEN
Background: Inpatients spend most of their hospitalization in bed, which can lead to negative physical, social, and psychological outcomes, especially in the geriatric population. Goal-directed mobilization involves setting mobility goals with patients and care teams working together toward achieving these goals. Methods: Three different platforms (SCOPUS, Ovid Medline, PubMed) were searched. Search terms included "goal-directed," "goal-attainment" or "goal-setting," and "inpatient" or "hospitalization" and "mobility" or "mobilization." Articles were included if mobility goals were set in acutely hospitalized adults. Studies were excluded if only covering specific illness or surgery. Results: One Hundred Seventy three articles were screened for inclusion by two independent reviewers. In the final analysis, 13 articles (5 randomized controlled trials, 2 Post-hoc analyses, 3 quality-improvement projects, 1 pre-post two group analysis, 1 comment and 1 study protocol) were assessed. Goal-directed mobilization improved mobility-related outcomes, i.e., level of mobilization, activity, daily walking time and functional independence. Readmissions, quality of life, discharge disposition and muscle weakness were not significantly altered and there was conflicting evidence regarding length of stay and activities of daily living. Conclusion: There is a lack of evidence of goal-directed mobilization on relevant outcomes due to the low number of studies in the field and the study design used. Further research on goal-directed mobility should use standardized mobility protocols and measurements to assess mobility and the effects of goal-directed mobility more accurately and include broader patient populations.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Despite the fact that immobilisation is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality, patients hospitalised in general internal medicine (GIM) wards spend up to 50% of time in bed. Previous studies in selected patient populations showed increased mobility after implementation of goal-directed mobilisation (GDM). Due to the study design used so far, the degree of evidence is generally low. The effect of GDM on clinical outcomes and economically relevant indicators in patients hospitalised in GIM wards is currently unknown. This study aims to evaluate a GDM intervention compared to standard care on physical activity (de Morton Mobility Index, DEMMI) in medical inpatients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: GoMob-in is a randomised, controlled, open-label study with blinded outcome assessment. We plan to enrol 160 inpatients with indication for physiotherapy on GIM wards of a tertiary hospital in Bern, Switzerland. Adult patients newly hospitalised on GIM wards will be included in the study. The primary outcome will be the change in the DEMMI score between baseline and 5 days. Secondary outcomes are change of DEMMI (inclusion to hospital discharge), mobilisation time (inclusion to day 5, inclusion to discharge), in-hospital delirium episodes, number of in-hospital falls, length of stay, number of falls within 3 months, number of re-hospitalisations and all-cause mortality within 3 months, change in independence during activities of daily living, concerns of falling, and quality of life within 3 months and destination after 3 months. Patients in the intervention group will be attributed a regularly updated individual mobility goal level made visible for all stakeholders and get a short educational intervention on GDM. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the responsible Ethics Board (Ethikkommission Bern/2020-02305). Written informed consent will be obtained from participants before study inclusion. Results will be published in open access policy peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04760392.