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.

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.

Validating Fall Prevention Icons to Support Patient-Centered Education.

INTRODUCTION: Falls with injury are the most prevalent hospital adverse event. The objective of this project was to refine fall risk and prevention icons for a patient-centric bedside toolkit to promote patient and nurse engagement in accurately assessing fall risks and developing a tailored fall prevention plan. METHODS: Eighty-eight patients and 60 nurses from 2 academic medical centers participated in 4 iterations of testing to refine 6 fall risk and 10 fall prevention icons. During individual interviews, participants rated their satisfaction with the degree to which that icon represented the concept on a 4-point Likert scale, enabling computation of a Content Validity Index (CVI), and provided comments and suggestions for improvement. After reviewing CVI scores and feedback, the research team consulted with the illustrator to revise the icons. RESULTS: Content Validity Index scores improved after icon modifications. Icons that depicted multiple concepts required further iterations to be acceptable. DISCUSSION: Using icons to depict an accurate and easy-to-interpret fall risk assessment and intervention plan for all care team members including patients and family to follow should lead to improved adherence with that plan and decreased falls. CONCLUSIONS: All 16 icons were refined and used to form the basis for a bedside fall prevention toolkit.

Evaluation of a Patient-Centered Fall-Prevention Tool Kit to Reduce Falls and Injuries: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Falls represent a leading cause of preventable injury in hospitals and a frequently reported serious adverse event. Hospitalization is associated with an increased risk for falls and serious injuries including hip fractures, subdural hematomas, or even death. Multifactorial strategies have been shown to reduce falls in acute care hospitals, but evidence for fall-related injury prevention in hospitals is lacking. Objective: To assess whether a fall-prevention tool kit that engages patients and families in the fall-prevention process throughout hospitalization is associated with reduced falls and injurious falls. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized controlled trial using stepped wedge design was conducted between November 1, 2015, and October 31, 2018, in 14 medical units within 3 academic medical centers in Boston and New York City. All adult inpatients hospitalized in participating units were included in the analysis. Interventions: A nurse-led fall-prevention tool kit linking evidence-based preventive interventions to patient-specific fall risk factors and designed to integrate continuous patient and family engagement in the fall-prevention process. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate of patient falls per 1000 patient-days in targeted units during the study period. The secondary outcome was the rate of falls with injury per 1000 patient-days. Results: During the interrupted time series, 37 231 patients were evaluated, including 17 948 before the intervention (mean [SD] age, 60.56 [18.30] years; 9723 [54.17%] women) and 19 283 after the intervention (mean [SD] age, 60.92 [18.10] years; 10 325 [53.54%] women). There was an overall adjusted 15% reduction in falls after implementation of the fall-prevention tool kit compared with before implementation (2.92 vs 2.49 falls per 1000 patient-days [95% CI, 2.06-3.00 falls per 1000 patient-days]; adjusted rate ratio 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96; P = .01) and an adjusted 34% reduction in injurious falls (0.73 vs 0.48 injurious falls per 1000 patient-days [95% CI, 0.34-0.70 injurious falls per 1000 patient-days]; adjusted rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.88; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized controlled trial, implementation of a fall-prevention tool kit was associated with a significant reduction in falls and related injuries. A patient-care team partnership appears to be beneficial for prevention of falls and fall-related injuries. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02969343.

Patient Activation Related to Fall Prevention: A Multisite Study.

BACKGROUND: Falls are a major problem in hospitals. The fall prevention program Fall TIPS (Tailoring Interventions for Patient Safety) has been shown to be effective in preventing inpatient falls and related injuries. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the Fall TIPS program on patient activation related to fall prevention. METHODS: Patient activation was measured by surveying a random sample of adult patients before and after implementation of Fall TIPS at three health care systems. Researchers used the short form Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13) adapted for fall prevention. This 13-item survey assesses a patient's knowledge, skill, and confidence in managing his or her fall prevention. Patients (N = 343) were surveyed on medical units at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH), Montefiore Medical Center (MMC), and New York-Presbyterian (NYP) Hospital. Statistical analysis using the robust t-test was done to compare patient activation in the preintervention and postintervention groups. RESULTS: Patient activation improved from preintervention to postintervention at all sites (BWH, p < 0.0001; NYP, p = 0.0373; MMC, p < 0.0001). Overall, the mean PAM score improved from 63.82 (standard deviation [SD] ± 17.35) to 80.88 (SD ± 17.48), p < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: Patients with access to the Fall TIPS program are more activated and engaged in their fall prevention plan. Members of the care team should engage patients in their fall prevention plan to increase their knowledge, skill, and confidence.

Classification of Injurious Fall Severity in Hospitalized Adults.

BACKGROUND: Many hospital systems in the United States report injurious inpatient falls using the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators categories: None, Minor, Moderate, Major, and Death. The Major category is imprecise, including injuries ranging from a wrist fracture to potentially fatal subdural hematoma. The purpose of this project was to refine the Major injury classification to derive a valid and reliable categorization of the types and severities of Major inpatient fall-related injuries. METHODS: Based on published literature and ranking of injurious fall incident reports (n = 85) from a large Academic Medical Center, we divided the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators Major category into three subcategories: Major A-injuries that caused temporary functional impairment (eg, wrist fracture), major facial injury without internal injury (eg, nasal bone fracture), or disruption of a surgical wound; Major B-injuries that caused long-term functional impairment or had the potential risk of increased mortality (eg, multiple rib fractures); and Major C-injuries that had a well-established risk of mortality (eg, hip fracture). Based on the literature and expert opinion, our research team reached consensus on an administration manual to promote accurate classification of Major injuries into one of the three subcategories. RESULTS: The team tested and validated each of the categories which resulted in excellent interrater reliability (kappa = .96). Of the Major injuries, the distribution of Major A, B, and C was 40.3%, 16.1%, and 43.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These subcategories enhance the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators categorization. Using the administration manual, trained personnel can classify injurious fall severity with excellent reliability.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Engaging Patients and Their Families in the Three-Step Fall Prevention Process Across Modalities of an Evidence-Based Fall Prevention Toolkit: An Implementation Science Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient falls are a major problem in hospitals. The development of a Patient-Centered Fall Prevention Toolkit, Fall TIPS (Tailoring Interventions for Patient Safety), reduced falls by 25% in acute care hospitals by leveraging health information technology to complete the 3-step fall prevention process-(1) conduct fall risk assessments; (2) develop tailored fall prevention plans with the evidence-based interventions; and (3) consistently implement the plan. We learned that Fall TIPS was most effective when patients and family were engaged in all 3 steps of the fall prevention process. Over the past decade, our team developed 3 Fall TIPS modalities-the original electronic health record (EHR) version, a laminated paper version that uses color to provide clinical decision support linking patient-specific risk factors to the interventions, and a bedside display version that automatically populates the bedside monitor with the patients' fall prevention plan based on the clinical documentation in the EHR. However, the relative effectiveness of each Fall TIPS modality for engaging patients and family in the 3-step fall prevention process remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine if the Fall TIPS modality impacts patient engagement in the 3-step fall prevention process and thus Fall TIPS efficacy. METHODS: To assess patient engagement in the 3-step fall prevention process, we conducted random audits with the question, "Does the patient/family member know their fall prevention plan?" In addition, audits were conducted to measure adherence, defined by the presence of the Fall TIPS poster at the bedside. Champions from 3 hospitals reported data from April to June 2017 on 6 neurology and 7 medical units. Peer-to-peer feedback to reiterate the best practice for patient engagement was central to data collection. RESULTS: Overall, 1209 audits were submitted for the patient engagement measure and 1401 for the presence of the Fall TIPS poster at the bedside. All units reached 80% adherence for both measures. While some units maintained high levels of patient engagement and adherence with the poster protocol, others showed improvement over time, reaching clinically significant adherence (>80%) by the final month of data collection. CONCLUSIONS: Each Fall TIPS modality effectively facilitates patient engagement in the 3-step fall prevention process, suggesting all 3 can be used to integrate evidence-based fall prevention practices into the clinical workflow. The 3 Fall TIPS modalities may prove an effective strategy for the spread, allowing diverse institutions to choose the modality that fits with the organizational culture and health information technology infrastructure.

Development and Validation of a Fall Prevention Knowledge Test.

Falls are a serious, persistent problem in hospitals. Ensuring that all hospital staff have adequate knowledge of how to prevent falls is the first step in prevention. We identified validated fall prevention knowledge tests (FPKTs) and planned to conduct a systematic literature review. When the review identified a lack of FPKTs, we developed and evaluated a FPKT, confirmed its conceptual framework, identified the content domain, drafted test items, devised the format, selected items for empirical examination, and conducted a psychometric evaluation. We randomly divided a 209-subject data set into test and validation samples to make item reduction decisions and examine reliability and validity. The typical respondent was a white, 42-year old female nurse with a bachelor's degree and 7 years' experience. Subjects were confident in their ability to prevent falls, rating themselves an 8 on a self-efficacy scale of 1 (not at all) to 10 (very). The 11-item FPKT scale (range 0-11) attained a tetrachoric coefficient of 0.73, confirming initial reliability. FPKT mean scores obtained before and after fall prevention education improved from 5.1 ± 1.8 to 6.6 ± 1.7. Statistically significant differences (paired t-test = 12.4, p < .001) confirmed validity. A robust way to assess nurses' knowledge of fall prevention is needed to inform effective educational programs. Addressing gaps in validated FPKTs provides an opportunity to inform and evaluate effective fall prevention programs. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:133-138, 2019.

Pilot Testing Fall TIPS (Tailoring Interventions for Patient Safety): a Patient-Centered Fall Prevention Toolkit.

BACKGROUND: Patient falls during an acute hospitalization cause injury, reduced mobility, and increased costs. The laminated paper Fall TIPS Toolkit (Fall TIPS) provides clinical decision support at the bedside by linking each patient's fall risk assessment with evidence-based interventions. Strategies were needed to integrate this evidence into clinical practice. METHODS: The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Framework for Spread is the conceptual model for pilot implementation of Fall TIPS at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH; Boston) and Montefiore Medical Center (MMC; Bronx, New York). The key to translating the evidence into practice was engaging stakeholders by leveraging existing shared governance structures, identifying unit champions, holding training sessions for all staff, and implementing auditing to assess and provide feedback on protocol adherence and patient outcomes. RESULTS: BWH unit compliance with using Fall TIPS averaged 82%, the mean fall rate decreased from 3.28 to 2.80 falls per 1,000 patient-days from January through June 2015 versus 2016, and the mean fall with injury rate for these periods decreased from 1.00 to 0.54 per 1,000 patient-days. At MMC, compliance averaged 91%, but the mean fall rate increased marginally from 3.04 to 3.10, while the mean fall with injury rate decreased from 0.47 to 0.31 per 1,000 patient-days. Patient knowledge survey results show improvement in knowledge of the risks for falls and the ways to prevent falls. CONCLUSION: Engaging hospital and clinical leadership is critical in translating evidence-based care into clinical practice. Barriers to adoption of the protocol have been addressed and detailed to provide guidance for spread to other institutions.