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.

Interactions that support older inpatients with cognitive impairments to engage with falls prevention in hospitals: An ethnographic study.

AIMS: To explore the nature of interactions that enable older inpatients with cognitive impairments to engage with hospital staff on falls prevention. DESIGN: Ethnographic study. METHODS: Ethnographic observations on orthopaedic and older person wards in English hospitals (251.25 h) and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 50 staff, 28 patients and three carers. Findings were analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Interactions were often informal and personalised. Staff qualities that supported engagement in falls prevention included the ability to empathise and negotiate, taking patient perspectives into account. Although registered nurses had limited time for this, families/carers and other staff, including engagement workers, did so and passed information to nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Some older inpatients with cognitive impairments engaged with staff on falls prevention. Engagement enabled them to express their needs and collaborate, to an extent, on falls prevention activities. To support this, we recommend wider adoption in hospitals of engagement workers and developing the relational skills that underpin engagement in training programmes for patient-facing staff. IMPLICATIONS FOR PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: Interactions that support cognitively impaired inpatients to engage in falls prevention can involve not only nurses, but also families/carers and non-nursing staff, with potential to reduce pressures on busy nurses and improve patient safety. REPORTING METHOD: The paper adheres to EQUATOR guidelines, Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient/public contributors were involved in study design, evaluation and data analysis. They co-authored this manuscript.

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.

What supports and constrains the implementation of multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored multifactorial falls prevention interventions in acute hospitals? Protocol for a realist review.

INTRODUCTION: Falls are the most common type of safety incident reported by acute hospitals and can cause both physical (eg, hip fractures) and non-physical harm (eg, reduced confidence) to patients. It is recommended that, in order to prevent falls in hospital, patients should receive a multifactorial falls risk assessment and be provided with a multifactorial intervention, tailored to address the patient's identified individual risk factors. It is estimated that such an approach could reduce the incidence of inpatient falls by 25%-30% and reduce the annual cost of falls by up to 25%. However, there is substantial unexplained variation between hospitals in the number and type of assessments undertaken and interventions implemented. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist review will be undertaken to construct and test programme theories regarding (1) what supports and constrains the implementation of multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored multifactorial falls prevention interventions in acute hospitals; and (2) how, why, in what contexts and for whom tailored multifactorial falls prevention interventions lead to a reduction in patients' falls risk. We will first identify stakeholders' theories concerning these two topics, searching Medline (1946-present) and Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Health Management Information Consortium (1983-present) and CINAHL (1981-present). We will then test these theories systematically, using primary studies to determine whether empirical evidence supports, refutes or suggests a revision or addition to the identified theories. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study does not require ethical approval. The review will provide evidence for how to implement multifactorial falls risk assessment and prevention strategies in acute hospital settings. This will be disseminated to academic and clinical audiences and will provide the basis for a future multi-site study through which the theories will be further refined. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020184458.