Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation.

Background: Falls are the most common safety incident reported by acute hospitals. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommends multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions, but implementation is variable. Aim: To determine how and in what contexts multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions are used in acute National Health Service hospitals in England. Design: Realist review and multisite case study. (1) Systematic searches to identify stakeholders' theories, tested using empirical data from primary studies. Review of falls prevention policies of acute Trusts. (2) Theory testing and refinement through observation, staff interviews (n = 50), patient and carer interviews (n = 31) and record review (n = 60). Setting: Three Trusts, one orthopaedic and one older person ward in each. Results: Seventy-eight studies were used for theory construction and 50 for theory testing. Four theories were explored. (1) Leadership: wards had falls link practitioners but authority to allocate resources for falls prevention resided with senior nurses. (2) Shared responsibility: a key falls prevention strategy was patient supervision. This fell to nursing staff, constraining the extent to which responsibility for falls prevention could be shared. (3) Facilitation: assessments were consistently documented but workload pressures could reduce this to a tick-box exercise. Assessment items varied. While individual patient risk factors were identified, patients were categorised as high or low risk to determine who should receive supervision. (4) Patient participation: nursing staff lacked time to explain to patients their falls risks or how to prevent themselves from falling, although other staff could do so. Sensitive communication could prevent patients taking actions that increase their risk of falling. Limitations: Within the realist review, we completed synthesis for only two theories. We could not access patient records before observations, preventing assessment of whether care plans were enacted. Conclusions: (1) Leadership: There should be a clear distinction between senior nurses' roles and falls link practitioners in relation to falls prevention; (2) shared responsibility: Trusts should consider how processes and systems, including the electronic health record, can be revised to better support a multidisciplinary approach, and alternatives to patient supervision should be considered; (3) facilitation: Trusts should consider how to reduce documentation burden and avoid tick-box responses, and ensure items included in the falls risk assessment tools align with guidance. Falls risk assessment tools and falls care plans should be presented as tools to support practice, rather than something to be audited; (4) patient participation: Trusts should consider how they can ensure patients receive individualised information about risks and preventing falls and provide staff with guidance on brief but sensitive ways to talk with patients to reduce the likelihood of actions that increase their risk of falling. Future work: (1) Development and evaluation of interventions to support multidisciplinary teams to undertake, and involve patients in, multifactorial falls risk assessment and selection and delivery of tailored interventions; (2) mixed method and economic evaluations of patient supervision; (3) evaluation of engagement support workers, volunteers and/or carers to support falls prevention. Research should include those with cognitive impairment and patients who do not speak English. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020184458. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129488) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Many accidental falls by older people in hospitals could be avoided. There are guidelines to prevent falls, but some hospitals are better at following them than others. This study aimed to find out why. First, we looked at research and hospitals' falls policies for ideas about what stops falls. With advice from service users, we tested these ideas in four hospitals in England, watching how falls were prevented on wards for older people and people who need bone care, and talking to 50 staff, 28 patients and 3 carers. We found the following: Falls leadership: wards had staff called falls link practitioners who supported falls prevention, but senior nurses, not link practitioners, made the most important decisions. Sharing responsibility: patients with falls risks were monitored to try to stop falls. Because only nursing teams were always present to monitor patients, they had most responsibility for preventing falls. This limited sharing responsibility with other staff. Computer tools: nurses used computers to record prevention work, but high workloads could make this a 'tick-box' exercise. Computer tools reminded them to do this, although tools varied. Patients had individual falls plans, but they were also ranked more generally as high or low risk of falling, with 'high-risk' patients being monitored. Patient involvement: nursing staff did not have time to explain to patients how to prevent falls, but other staff could have such conversations. Many patients had problems like dementia and found it difficult to follow safety advice, although some could take steps to keep safe, with sensitive staff support. We need to involve patients, carers and different staff in falls prevention. Hospitals could develop computer systems to support this, think how to involve more ward staff, and provide guidance on helpful ways to talk with patients about falls.

The extent of anticholinergic burden across an older Welsh population living with frailty: cross-sectional analysis of general practice records.

BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic medicines are associated with adverse outcomes for older people. However, little is known about their use in frailty. The objectives were to (i) investigate the prevalence of anticholinergic prescribing for older patients, and (ii) examine anticholinergic burden according to frailty status. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of Welsh primary care data from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage databank including patients aged ≥65 at their first GP consultation between 1 January and 31 December 2018. Frailty was identified using the electronic Frailty Index and anticholinergic burden using the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) scale. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression were conducted to (i) describe the type and frequency of anticholinergics prescribed; and (ii) to estimate the association between frailty and cumulative ACB score (ACB-Sum). RESULTS: In this study of 529,095 patients, 47.4% of patients receiving any prescription medications were prescribed at least one anticholinergic medicine. Adjusted regression analysis showed that patients with increasing frailty had higher odds of having an ACB-Sum of >3 compared with patients who were fit (mild frailty, adj OR 1.062 (95%CI 1.061-1.064), moderate frailty, adj OR 1.134 (95%CI 1.131-1.136), severe frailty, adj OR 1.208 (95%CI 1.203-1.213)). CONCLUSIONS: Anticholinergic prescribing was high in this older population. Older people with advancing frailty are exposed to the highest anticholinergic burden despite being the most vulnerable to the associated adverse effects. Older people with advancing frailty should be considered for medicines review to prevent overaccumulation of anticholinergic medications, given the risks of functional and cognitive decline that frailty presents.

Exploring variation in implementation of multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Falls are the most common safety incident reported by acute hospitals. In England national guidance recommends delivery of a multifactorial falls risk assessment (MFRA) and interventions tailored to address individual falls risk factors. However, there is variation in how these practices are implemented. This study aimed to explore the variation by examining what supports or constrains delivery of MFRAs and tailored interventions in acute hospitals. METHODS: A realist review of literature was conducted with searches completed in three stages: (1) to construct hypotheses in the form of Context, Mechanism, Outcome configurations (CMOc) about how MFRAs and interventions are delivered, (2) to scope the breadth and depth of evidence available in Embase to test the CMOcs, and (3) following prioritisation of CMOcs, to refine search strategies for use in multiple databases. Citations were managed in EndNote; titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened, with 10% independently screened by two reviewers. RESULTS: Two CMOcs were prioritised for testing labelled: Facilitation via MFRA tools, and Patient Participation in interventions. Analysis indicated that MFRA tools can prompt action, but the number and type of falls risk factors included in tools differ across organisations leading to variation in practice. Furthermore, the extent to which tools work as prompts is influenced by complex ward conditions such as changes in patient condition, bed swaps, and availability of falls prevention interventions. Patient participation in falls prevention interventions is more likely where patient directed messaging takes individual circumstances into account, e.g., not wanting to disturb nurses by using the call bell. However, interactions that elicit individual circumstances can be resource intensive and patients with cognitive impairment may not be able to participate despite appropriately directed messaging. CONCLUSIONS: Organisations should consider how tools can be developed in ways that better support consistent and comprehensive identification of patients' individual falls risk factors and the complex ward conditions that can disrupt how tools work as facilitators. Ward staff should be supported to deliver patient directed messaging that is informed by their individual circumstances to encourage participation in falls prevention interventions, where appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020184458.

Working together: reflections on how to make public involvement in research work.

BACKGROUND: The importance of involving members of the public in the development, implementation and dissemination of research is increasingly recognised. There have been calls to share examples of how this can be done, and this paper responds by reporting how professional and lay researchers collaborated on a research study about falls prevention among older patients in English acute hospitals. It focuses on how they worked together in ways that valued all contributions, as envisaged in the UK standards for public involvement for better health and social care research. METHODS: The paper is itself an example of working together, having been written by a team of lay and professional researchers. It draws on empirical evidence from evaluations they carried out about the extent to which the study took patient and public perspectives into account, as well as reflective statements they produced as co-authors, which, in turn, contributed to the end-of-project evaluation. RESULTS: Lay contributors' deep involvement in the research had a positive effect on the project and the individuals involved, but there were also difficulties. Positive impacts included lay contributors focusing the project on areas that matter most to patients and their families, improving the quality and relevance of outcomes by contributing to data analysis, and feeling they were 'honouring' their personal experience of the subject of study. Negative impacts included the potential for lay people to feel overwhelmed by the challenges involved in achieving the societal or organisational changes necessary to address research issues, which can cause them to question their rationale for public involvement. CONCLUSIONS: The paper concludes with practical recommendations for working together effectively in research. These cover the need to discuss the potential emotional impacts of such work with lay candidates during recruitment and induction and to support lay people with these impacts throughout projects; finding ways to address power imbalances and practical challenges; and tips on facilitating processes within lay groups, especially relational processes like the development of mutual trust.

Involving members of the public in all stages of research as equal partners is a powerful way to make research more relevant. This paper shares an example of such involvement, from a study about falls prevention in English hospitals. Developed by a team of lay people and professional researchers, the paper looks at how we worked together, drawing on evaluations we carried out about how the study took patient and public perspectives into account, and on personal reflections we wrote. Public involvement had a positive effect on the project and the individuals involved, but there were also difficulties. Positive impacts included lay people ensuring the study focused on what mattered most to patients and their families and feeling they had done right by their personal experience of the study's subject. Negative impacts included the potential for people to feel overwhelmed by the changes in organisations or in wider society needed to address the issues being explored by a research study, which could cause them to question why they became involved in the first place. The paper ends with practical recommendations about working together, covering things such as helping lay people with the emotional impact of involvement from the beginning to the end of projects; finding ways to ensure everybody is treated in the same way and solving practical problems; and tips on leading and supporting groups of this kind, especially with personal issues like trusting each other.

A rapid review of interventions to improve medicine self-management for older people living at home.

BACKGROUND: As people age, they are more likely to develop multiple long-term conditions that require complicated medicine regimens. Safely self-managing multiple medicines at home is challenging and how older people can be better supported to do so has not been fully explored. AIM: This study aimed to identify interventions to improve medicine self-management for older people living at home and the aspects of medicine self-management that they address. DESIGN: A rapid review was undertaken of publications up to April 2022. Eight databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: interventions aimed at people 65 years of age or older and their informal carers, living at home. Interventions needed to include at least one component of medicine self-management. Study protocols, conference papers, literature reviews and articles not in the English language were not included. The results from the review were reported through narrative synthesis, underpinned by the Resilient Healthcare theory. RESULTS: Database searches returned 14,353 results. One hundred and sixty-seven articles were individually appraised (full-text screening) and 33 were included in the review. The majority of interventions identified were educational. In most cases, they aimed to improve older people's adherence and increase their knowledge of medicines. Only very few interventions addressed potential issues with medicine supply. Only a minority of interventions specifically targeted older people with either polypharmacy, multimorbidities or frailty. CONCLUSION: To date, the emphasis in supporting older people to manage their medicines has been on the ability to adhere to medicine regimens. Most interventions identify and target deficiencies within the patient, rather than preparing patients for problems inherent in the medicine management system. Medicine self-management requires a much wider range of skills than taking medicines as prescribed. Interventions supporting older people to anticipate and respond to problems with their medicines may reduce the risk of harm associated with polypharmacy and may contribute to increased resilience in the system. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A patient with lived experience of medicine self-management in older age contributed towards shaping the research question as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this review. She is also the coauthor of this article. A patient advisory group oversaw the study.

Designing health IT to support falls prevention in hospitals: Findings from a realist review.

Inpatient falls are an international patient safety concern, accounting for 30-40% of reported safety incidents in acute hospitals. They can cause both physical (e.g. hip fractures) and non-physical harm (e.g. reduced confidence) to patients. We used an approach known as a realist review to identify theories about what interventions might work for whom in what contexts, focusing on what supports and constrains effective use of multifactorial falls risk assessment and falls prevention interventions. One of these theories suggested that staff will integrate recommended practices into their work routines if falls risk assessment tools, including health IT, are quick and easy to use and facilitate existing work routines. Synthesis of empirical studies undertaken in the process of testing and refining this theory has implications for the design of health IT, suggesting that while health IT can support falls prevention through automation, such tools should also allow for incorporation of clinical judgement.

Successful care transitions for older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of interventions that support medication continuity.

BACKGROUND: medication-related problems occur frequently when older patients are discharged from hospital. Interventions to support medication use have been developed; however, their effectiveness in older populations are unknown. This review evaluates interventions that support successful transitions of care through enhanced medication continuity. METHODS: a database search for randomised controlled trials was conducted. Selection criteria included mean participant age of 65 years and older, intervention delivered during hospital stay or following recent discharge and including activities that support medication continuity. Primary outcome of interest was hospital readmission. Secondary outcomes related to the safe use of medication and quality of life. Outcomes were pooled by random-effects meta-analysis where possible. RESULTS: twenty-four studies (total participants = 17,664) describing activities delivered at multiple time points were included. Interventions that bridged the transition for up to 90 days were more likely to support successful transitions. The meta-analysis, stratified by intervention component, demonstrated that self-management activities (RR 0.81 [0.74, 0.89]), telephone follow-up (RR 0.84 [0.73, 0.97]) and medication reconciliation (RR 0.88 [0.81, 0.96]) were statistically associated with reduced hospital readmissions. CONCLUSION: our results suggest that interventions that best support older patients' medication continuity are those that bridge transitions; these also have the greatest impact on reducing hospital readmission. Interventions that included self-management, telephone follow-up and medication reconciliation activities were most likely to be effective; however, further research needs to identify how to meaningfully engage with patients and caregivers to best support post-discharge medication continuity. Limitations included high subjectivity of intervention coding, study heterogeneity and resource restrictions.

Medication-related risk factors and its association with repeated hospital admissions in frail elderly: A case control study.

BACKGROUND: Repeated hospital admissions are prevalent in older people. The role of medication in repeated hospital admissions has not been widely studied. The hypothesis that medication-related risk factors for initial hospital admissions were also associated with repeated hospital admissions was generated. OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between medication-related risk factors and repeated hospital admissions in older people living with frailty. METHOD: A retrospective case-control study was carried out with 200 patients aged ≥75 years with unplanned medical admissions into a large teaching hospital in England between January and December 2015. Demographic, clinical, and medication-related data were obtained from review of discharge summaries. Statistical comparisons were made between patients with 3 or more hospital admissions during the study period (cases) and those with 2 or fewer admissions (controls). Regressions were performed to establish independent predictors of repeated hospital admissions. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 83.8 years (SD 5.68) and 65.5% were female. There were 561 admission episodes across the sample, with the main reasons for admissions recorded as respiratory problems (25%) and falls (17%). Univariate logistic regression revealed five medication-related risks to be associated with repeated hospital admissions: Hyper-polypharmacy (defined as taking ≥10 medications) (OR 2.50, p < 0.005); prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (OR 1.89; p < 0.05); prescription of a diuretic (OR 1.87; p < 0.05); number of high risk medication (OR 1.29; p < 0.05) and the number of 'when required' medication (OR 1.20; p < 0.05). However, the effects of these risk factors became insignificant when comorbid disease was adjusted for in a multivariable model. CONCLUSION: Medication-related risk factors may play an important role in future repeated admission risk prediction models. The modifiable nature of medication-related risks factors highlights a real opportunity to improve health outcomes.

Patient and public involvement in designing and conducting doctoral research: the whys and the hows.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Evidence shows that public and patient involvement in research has a positive effect on its quality and end-results. Thus, public and patient involvement in all stages of research is becoming commonplace. There are limited detailed examples however, that describe how to make this possible, especially for those doing PhD research. Doctoral researchers are often new to research practice or have limited experience and are often bound by strict time and financial constraints. It is also not usually a requirement of the award to involve public and patients in their research. Hence, they may not feel confident or motivated to involve or engage with public and patients during their research. We, four doctoral researchers, share examples from our own research studies that have included different approaches to public and patient involvement. Two studies formed public and patient advisory groups who helped design the research questions, data collection tools and recruitment methods. One enlisted the help of an online public and patient panel from a local hospital. A different study worked with patients from an established group to help define key medical words. We did face some challenges, such as the need to develop good group work skills and to apply for grants to cover reimbursement, but we all found it beneficial to involve patients in our studies. We noticed a positive effect on each study's progression and an improvement in our own self-esteem. In addition, having public and patient involvement helped reduce the isolation we felt as doctoral researchers. Thus, we strongly encourage more doctoral researchers to involve public and patients in their studies. ABSTRACT: Public and patient involvement (PPI) has been shown to have a positive impact on health and social care research. However, adequate examples describing how to operationalise effective PPI, especially in doctoral studies, are lacking. Hence, doctoral researchers new to research, or those with limited experience, can be discouraged from facilitating PPI in their research. This paper aims to describe and discuss in detail the approaches used by four doctoral researchers to incorporate PPI at different stages of their research studies from study design to disseminating findings.We aim to inform other doctoral researchers about the challenges and limitations relating to PPI that we faced. Through these, we share pragmatic recommendations for facilitating PPI during doctoral studies.The description of four case studies demonstrated that PPI could be incorporated at various stages during doctoral research. This has had a beneficial impact on our research study progression, researcher self-esteem and lastly, helped alleviate researcher isolation during doctoral studies.