Fall Risk Prediction Models During the Initial COVID-19 Surge: Could Predictive Analytics Be Used in a Resource-Constrained Environment?

During the first COVID surge, multiple changes in nurse staffing and workflows were made to support care delivery in a resource-constrained environment. We hypothesized that there was a higher rate of inpatient falls during the COVID surge. Furthermore, we predicted that an automated predictive analytic algorithm would perform as well as the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment. A retrospective review of falls for 3 months before and the first 3 months of the first COVID surge was conducted. We determined the total number of falls and the overall fall rate and examined the distribution of scores and accuracy of fall predictive models for both groups. There was a statistically significant increase in fall rate during the first 3 months of the COVID surge compared with the 3 prior months (2.48/1000 patient-days vs 1.89/1000 patient-days respectively; P = .041). The Johns Hopkins instrument had a greater sensitivity of 78.9% compared with 57.0% for the predictive analytic model. Specificity and accuracy of the predictive analytic model were higher than the Johns Hopkins instrument (71.3% vs 54.1% and 71.2% vs 54.3%, respectively). These findings suggest that the automated predictive analytic model could be used in a resource-constrained environment to accurately classify patients' risk of fall.

Comparison of Two Different Models to Predict Fall Risk in Hospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: Fall prevention is a patient safety and economic priority for health care organizations. An automated model within the electronic medical record (EMR) that accurately predicts risk for falling would be valuable for mitigation of inpatient falls. The aim of this study was to validate the reliability of an EMR-based computerized predictive model (ROF Model) for inpatient falls. The hypothesis was that the ROF Model would be similar to the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT) in predicting fall events in the inpatient setting at a large academic medical center. METHODS: This observational study compared the falls predicted by each model against actual falls over an eight-month period in a single institution. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the distribution of scores and accuracy of fall risk categorization for each model immediately preceding a fall. RESULTS: For 35,709 inpatient encounters, the total fall rate was 0.92%. Of the 329 patients who fell, 60.8% were high risk by ROF Model (fall rate 1.82%), and 75.4% were high risk by JHFRAT (fall rate 1.39%). The ROF Model had a better specificity than the JHFRAT (69.7% vs. 49.2%) but a similar C-statistic (0.717 vs. 0.702) and a lower sensitivity (60.8% vs. 79.3%). CONCLUSION: The performance of the ROF Model was similar to that of the JHFRAT in predicting inpatient falls. This comparison provides evidence to support a transition to a more automated process. Future studies will determine prospectively if implementation of the ROF Model will reduce falls in the inpatient setting.