Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Jun 21;23(1):381.
doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-04045-3.

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

Natasha Alvarado  1   2 , Lynn McVey  3   4 , Judy Wright  5 , Frances Healey  5 , Dawn Dowding  6 , V-Lin Cheong  7 , Peter Gardner  3   4 , Nick Hardiker  8 , Alison Lynch  9 , Hadar Zaman  4 , Heather Smith  10 , Rebecca Randell  3   4
Affiliations
Review

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

Natasha Alvarado et al. BMC Geriatr. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Falls; Falls prevention; Patient participation; Realist review; Risk assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

I declare that the authors have no competing interests as defined by BMC, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Initial programme theory depicting mechanisms that support implementation of falls prevention practices
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
PRISMA diagram
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. NHS Improvement . The incidence and costs of inpatient falls in hospitals. London: NHS Improvement; 2017.
    1. Oliver D. Preventing falls and fall injuries in hospital: a major risk management challenge. Clin Risk. 2007;13(5):173–8. doi: 10.1258/135626207781572693. - DOI
    1. Oliver D, Britton M, Seed P, Martin FC, Hopper AH. Development and evaluation of evidence based risk assessment tool (STRATIFY) to predict which elderly inpatients will fall: case-control and cohort studies. BMJ. 1997;315(7115):1049–53. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7115.1049. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Haines TP, Hill K, Walsh W, Osborne R. Design-related Bias in Hospital fall risk screening Tool Predictive accuracy evaluations: systematic review and Meta-analysis. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A. 2007;62(6):664–72. doi: 10.1093/gerona/62.6.664. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oliver D. Falls risk-prediction tools for hospital inpatients. Time to put them to bed? Age Ageing. 2008;37(3):248–50. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afn088. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types