INTRODUCTION: Fall risk is a major contributor to fracture risk; implementing fall reduction programmes remains a challenge for health professionals and policy-makers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We aimed to (1) ascertain whether the care received by 54 older adults after an emergency department (ED) fall presentation met internationally recommended 'Guideline Care', and (2) prospectively evaluate this cohort's 6-month change in fall risk profile. Participants were men and women aged 70 years or older who were discharged back into the community after presenting to an urban university tertiary-care hospital emergency department with a fall-related complaint. American Geriatric Society (AGS) guideline care was documented by post-presentation emergency department chart examination, daily patient diary of falls submitted monthly, patient interview and physician reconciliation where needed. Both at study entry and at a 6-month followup, we measured participants physiological characteristics by Lord's Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA), functional status, balance confidence, depression, physical activity and other factors. RESULTS: We found that only 2 of 54 (3.7%) of the fallers who presented to the ED received care consistent with AGS Guidelines. Baseline physiological fall risk scores classified the study population at a 1.7 SD higher risk than a 65-year-old comparison group, and during the 6-month followup period the mean fall-risk score increased significantly (i.e. greater risk of falls) (1.7+/-1.6 versus 2.2+/-1.6, p=0.000; 29.5% greater risk of falls). Also, functional ability [100 (15) versus 95 (25), p=0.002], balance confidence [82.5 (44.4) versus 71.3 (58.7), p=0.000] and depression [0 (2) versus 0 (3), p=0.000] all worsened over 6 months. Within 6 months of the index ED visit, five participants had suffered six fall-related fractures. DISCUSSION: We conclude that this group of community-dwelling fallers, who presented for ED care with a clinical profile suggesting a high risk of further falls and fracture, did not receive Guideline care and worsened in their fall risk profile by 29.5%. This gap in care, at least in one centre, suggests further investigation into alternative approaches to delivering Guideline standard health service.
INTRODUCTION: Fall risk is a major contributor to fracture risk; implementing fall reduction programmes remains a challenge for health professionals and policy-makers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We aimed to (1) ascertain whether the care received by 54 older adults after an emergency department (ED) fall presentation met internationally recommended 'Guideline Care', and (2) prospectively evaluate this cohort's 6-month change in fall risk profile. Participants were men and women aged 70 years or older who were discharged back into the community after presenting to an urban university tertiary-care hospital emergency department with a fall-related complaint. American Geriatric Society (AGS) guideline care was documented by post-presentation emergency department chart examination, daily patient diary of falls submitted monthly, patient interview and physician reconciliation where needed. Both at study entry and at a 6-month followup, we measured participants physiological characteristics by Lord's Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA), functional status, balance confidence, depression, physical activity and other factors. RESULTS: We found that only 2 of 54 (3.7%) of the fallers who presented to the ED received care consistent with AGS Guidelines. Baseline physiological fall risk scores classified the study population at a 1.7 SD higher risk than a 65-year-old comparison group, and during the 6-month followup period the mean fall-risk score increased significantly (i.e. greater risk of falls) (1.7+/-1.6 versus 2.2+/-1.6, p=0.000; 29.5% greater risk of falls). Also, functional ability [100 (15) versus 95 (25), p=0.002], balance confidence [82.5 (44.4) versus 71.3 (58.7), p=0.000] and depression [0 (2) versus 0 (3), p=0.000] all worsened over 6 months. Within 6 months of the index ED visit, five participants had suffered six fall-related fractures. DISCUSSION: We conclude that this group of community-dwelling fallers, who presented for ED care with a clinical profile suggesting a high risk of further falls and fracture, did not receive Guideline care and worsened in their fall risk profile by 29.5%. This gap in care, at least in one centre, suggests further investigation into alternative approaches to delivering Guideline standard health service.
Authors: S Kaptoge; L I Benevolenskaya; A K Bhalla; J B Cannata; S Boonen; J A Falch; D Felsenberg; J D Finn; R Nuti; K Hoszowski; R Lorenc; T Miazgowski; I Jajic; G Lyritis; P Masaryk; M Naves-Diaz; G Poor; D M Reid; C Scheidt-Nave; J J Stepan; C J Todd; K Weber; A D Woolf; D K Roy; M Lunt; S R Pye; T W O'neill; A J Silman; J Reeve Journal: Bone Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Stephen R Lord; Lynn M March; Ian D Cameron; Robert G Cumming; Jennifer Schwarz; Jane Zochling; Jian Sheng Charles Chen; Jan Makaroff; Yih Yiow Sitoh; Tang Ching Lau; Alan Brnabic; Philip N Sambrook Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: M E Tinetti; D I Baker; G McAvay; E B Claus; P Garrett; M Gottschalk; M L Koch; K Trainor; R I Horwitz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-09-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lauren T Southerland; Julie A Stephens; Shari Robinson; James Falk; Laura Phieffer; Joseph A Rosenthal; Jeffrey M Caterino Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Christine M McDonough; Carrie H Colla; Donald Carmichael; Anna N A Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; John-Erik Bell; Robert V Cantu; Jonathan D Lurie; Julie P W Bynum Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2017-03-01
Authors: E Lönnroos; H Kautiainen; R Sund; P Karppi; S Hartikainen; I Kiviranta; R Sulkava Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 4.507