A realist evaluation of multifactorial falls risk assessment and prevention practices

Author:

Alvarado Natasha1,McVey Lynn1,Healey Frances2,Dowding Dawn3,Zaman Hadar1,Cheong V-Lin4,Gardner Peter1,Lynch Alison5,Hardiker Nick6,Randell Rebecca1

Affiliation:

1. University of Bradford

2. NHS England

3. University of Manchester

4. Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

5. Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust

6. University of Huddersfield

Abstract

Abstract Background: Multifactorial falls risk assessments (MFRAs) and personalised interventions are recommended practices to reduce risk of falls in hospitals, but there is variation in implementation at practice level, reasons for which have not been explored. The aim of this study was to explore reasons for the variation. Methods: Realist evaluation was used to interrogate how, why and in what contexts falls prevention practices are implemented. Four realist hypotheses about delivery of MFRAs and personalised interventions labelled: Falls Leadership, Facilitation via MFRA tools, Shared responsibility, and Patient participation were tested. Testing was conducted via a multi-site case study in three acute hospitals in older person and orthopaedic wards. Data collection included ethnographic observations (251.25 hours); interviews with staff (n=50), patients and carers aged over 65 (n=31); and clinical record review (n=60). Results: MFRA tools were embedded in nursing practice, located in the Electronic Health Record. Nurses reported that these tools prompted assessment of individual falls risk factors and clinical records indicated that MFRAs and prevention plans were documented with consistency. However, assessment items varied between MFRA tools and competing priorities on nurse time could reduce tool use to a tick-box exercise. Patient supervision, delivered with different levels of intensity by nursing staff, was a key falls prevention intervention. Supervision appeared to constrain the extent to which responsibility for preventing falls was felt to be shared within multidisciplinary teams. Staff interactional skills such as conveying sincerity encouraged patient participation in interventions and understanding patient perspectives enabled personalisation of care in ways that supported their engagement in safety efforts; non-nursing staff and carers helped surface patient perspectives. Conclusions: Organisational policy reflects the MFRA approach. However, to promote reliable delivery of multidisciplinary, personalised interventions, and to help ease the nursing burden, organisations should consider how systems can support clinical teams to work together cohesively to modify individual falls risk factors, and drawing on non-nursing staff and carers to help personalise care in ways that encourage patient participation and engagement in safety efforts.

Publisher

Research Square Platform LLC

Reference22 articles.

1. NHS Improvement. The incidence and costs of inpatient falls in hospitals. London: NHS Improvement; 2017.

2. World guidelines for falls prevention and management for older adults: a global initiative;Montero-Odasso M;Age Ageing,2022

3. Prevention of falls in hospital;Morris R;Clin Med,2017

4. Preventing falls and fall injuries in hospital: a major risk management challenge;Oliver D;Clin Risk,2007

5. Preventing falls and fall-related injuries in hospitals;Oliver D;Clin Geriatr Med,2010

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3