Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER) 2: a cluster randomised trial and systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new protocols for emergency ambulance paramedics to assess older people following a fall with referral to community-based care when appropriate

Author:

Snooks Helen A1,Anthony Rebecca1,Chatters Robin2,Dale Jeremy3,Fothergill Rachael4,Gaze Sarah1,Halter Mary5,Humphreys Ioan6,Koniotou Marina1,Logan Phillipa7,Lyons Ronan1,Mason Suzanne2,Nicholl Jon2,Peconi Julie1,Phillips Ceri6,Phillips Judith8,Porter Alison1,Siriwardena A Niroshan9,Smith Graham10,Toghill Alun10,Wani Mushtaq11,Watkins Alan1,Whitfield Richard12,Wilson Lynsey1,Russell Ian T1

Affiliation:

1. Patient and Population Health and Informatics, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK

2. School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

3. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

4. Clinical Audit and Research Unit, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, London, UK

5. Faculty of Health and Social Care Sciences, St George’s University Hospital, London, UK

6. Swansea Centre for Health Economics, Swansea University, Swansea, UK

7. Community Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

8. Centre for Innovative Ageing, Swansea University, Swansea, UK

9. School of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK

10. Service user for the SAFER 2 trial

11. Department of Geriatric and Stroke Medicine, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK

12. Pre-hospital Emergency Research Unit (PERU), Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK

Abstract

BackgroundEmergency calls are frequently made to ambulance services for older people who have fallen, but ambulance crews often leave patients at the scene without any ongoing care. We evaluated a new clinical protocol which allowed paramedics to assess older people who had fallen and, if appropriate, refer them to community-based falls services.ObjectivesTo compare outcomes, processes and costs of care between intervention and control groups; and to understand factors which facilitate or hinder use.DesignCluster randomised controlled trial.ParticipantsParticipating paramedics at three ambulance services in England and Wales were based at stations randomised to intervention or control arms. Participants were aged 65 years and over, attended by a study paramedic for a fall-related emergency service call, and resident in the trial catchment areas.InterventionsIntervention paramedics received a clinical protocol with referral pathway, training and support to change practice. Control paramedics continued practice as normal.OutcomesThe primary outcome comprised subsequent emergency health-care contacts (emergency admissions, emergency department attendances, emergency service calls) or death at 1 month and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included pathway of care, ambulance service operational indicators, self-reported outcomes and costs of care. Those assessing outcomes remained blinded to group allocation.ResultsAcross sites, 3073 eligible patients attended by 105 paramedics from 14 ambulance stations were randomly allocated to the intervention group, and 2841 eligible patients attended by 110 paramedics from 11 stations were randomly allocated to the control group. After excluding dissenting and unmatched patients, 2391 intervention group patients and 2264 control group patients were included in primary outcome analyses. We did not find an effect on our overall primary outcome at 1 month or 6 months. However, further emergency service calls were reduced at both 1 month and 6 months; a smaller proportion of patients had made further emergency service calls at 1 month (18.5% vs. 21.8%) and the rate per patient-day at risk at 6 months was lower in the intervention group (0.013 vs. 0.017). Rate of conveyance to emergency department at index incident was similar between groups. Eight per cent of trial eligible patients in the intervention arm were referred to falls services by attending paramedics, compared with 1% in the control arm. The proportion of patients left at scene without further care was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (22.6% vs. 30.3%). We found no differences in duration of episode of care or job cycle. No adverse events were reported. Mean cost of the intervention was £17.30 per patient. There were no significant differences in mean resource utilisation, utilities at 1 month or 6 months or quality-adjusted life-years. In total, 58 patients, 25 paramedics and 31 stakeholders participated in focus groups or interviews. Patients were very satisfied with assessments carried out by paramedics. Paramedics reported that the intervention had increased their confidence to leave patients at home, but barriers to referral included patients’ social situations and autonomy.ConclusionsFindings indicate that this new pathway may be introduced by ambulance services at modest cost, without risk of harm and with some reductions in further emergency calls. However, we did not find evidence of improved health outcomes or reductions in overall NHS emergency workload. Further research is necessary to understand issues in implementation, the costs and benefits of e-trials and the performance of the modified Falls Efficacy Scale.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN60481756 and PROSPERO CRD42013006418.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Funder

Health Technology Assessment programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health Research

Subject

Health Policy

Reference126 articles.

1. A simple fall in the elderly: not so simple;Bergeron;J Trauma,2006

2. My home is my castle! Or is it? Hospitalizations following home injury in Israel, 1997–2001;Sikron;Isr Med Assoc J,2004

3. A multifactorial intervention to reduce the risk of falling among elderly people living in the community;Tinetti;N Engl J Med,1994

4. Prevention of falls among the elderly;Tinetti;N Engl J Med,1989

5. Preventing falls in elderly persons;Tinetti;N Engl J Med,2003

Cited by 37 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

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