BACKGROUND: Many hospitals classify inpatient falls as assisted (if a staff member is present to ease the patient's descent or break the fall) or unassisted for quality measurement purposes. Unassisted falls are more likely to result in injury, but there is limited research quantifying this effect or linking the assisted/unassisted classification to processes of care. A study was conducted to link the assisted/unassisted fall classification to both processes and outcomes of care, thereby demonstrating its suitability for use in quality measurement. This was only the second known published study to quantify the increased risk of injury associated with falling unassisted (versus assisted), and the first to estimate the effects of falling unassisted (versus assisted) on the likelihood of specific levels of injury. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of falls from all available 2011 data for 6,539 adult medical, surgical, and medical-surgical units in 1,464 general hospitals participating in the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators" (NDNQI) was performed. RESULTS: Participating units reported 166,883 falls (3.44 falls per 1,000 patient-days). Excluding repeat falls, 85.5% of falls were unassisted. Assisted and unassisted falls were associated with different processes and outcomes: Fallers for whom a fall prevention protocol was not in place were more likely to fall unassisted than those for whom one was in place (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.39 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.32, 1.46]), and unassisted falls were more likely to result in injury (aOR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.52, 1.67]). CONCLUSIONS: The assisted/unassisted fall classification is associated with care processes and patient outcomes, making it suitable for quality measurement. Unassisted falls are more likely than assisted falls to result in injury and should be considered a target for future prevention efforts.
BACKGROUND: Many hospitals classify inpatient falls as assisted (if a staff member is present to ease the patient's descent or break the fall) or unassisted for quality measurement purposes. Unassisted falls are more likely to result in injury, but there is limited research quantifying this effect or linking the assisted/unassisted classification to processes of care. A study was conducted to link the assisted/unassisted fall classification to both processes and outcomes of care, thereby demonstrating its suitability for use in quality measurement. This was only the second known published study to quantify the increased risk of injury associated with falling unassisted (versus assisted), and the first to estimate the effects of falling unassisted (versus assisted) on the likelihood of specific levels of injury. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of falls from all available 2011 data for 6,539 adult medical, surgical, and medical-surgical units in 1,464 general hospitals participating in the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators" (NDNQI) was performed. RESULTS: Participating units reported 166,883 falls (3.44 falls per 1,000 patient-days). Excluding repeat falls, 85.5% of falls were unassisted. Assisted and unassisted falls were associated with different processes and outcomes: Fallers for whom a fall prevention protocol was not in place were more likely to fall unassisted than those for whom one was in place (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.39 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.32, 1.46]), and unassisted falls were more likely to result in injury (aOR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.52, 1.67]). CONCLUSIONS: The assisted/unassisted fall classification is associated with care processes and patient outcomes, making it suitable for quality measurement. Unassisted falls are more likely than assisted falls to result in injury and should be considered a target for future prevention efforts.
Authors: Terry P Haines; Anne-Marie Hill; Keith D Hill; Steven McPhail; David Oliver; Sandra Brauer; Tammy Hoffmann; Christopher Beer Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-11-22
Authors: Wallace V Crandall; Brendan M Boyle; Richard B Colletti; Peter A Margolis; Michael D Kappelman Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Anne-Marie Hill; Tammy Hoffmann; Keith Hill; David Oliver; Christopher Beer; Steven McPhail; Sandra Brauer; Terry P Haines Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ronald I Shorr; Lorraine C Mion; A Michelle Chandler; Linda C Rosenblatt; Debra Lynch; Lori A Kessler Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-01-16 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Katherine J Jones; Anne Skinner; Dawn Venema; John Crowe; Robin High; Victoria Kennel; Joseph Allen; Roni Reiter-Palmon Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Anne-Marie Hill; Angela Jacques; A Michelle Chandler; Phyllis A Richey; Lorraine C Mion; Ronald I Shorr Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2018-09-28
Authors: Jacqueline Francis-Coad; Anne-Marie Hill; Angela Jacques; A Michelle Chandler; Phyllis A Richey; Lorraine C Mion; Ronald I Shorr Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Vincent S Staggs; Kea Turner; Catima Potter; Emily Cramer; Nancy Dunton; Lorraine C Mion; Ronald I Shorr Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Anne-Marie Hill; Steven M McPhail; Jacqueline Francis-Coad; Nicholas Waldron; Christopher Etherton-Beer; Leon Flicker; Katharine Ingram; Terry P Haines Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jeffrey J Guterman; Scott R Lundberg; Geoffrey P Scheib; Sandra G Gross-Schulman; Mark J Richman; Chien-Ju Wang; David A Talan Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2016-08-08
Authors: Anne-Marie Hill; Jacqueline Francis-Coad; Terry P Haines; Nicholas Waldron; Christopher Etherton-Beer; Leon Flicker; Katharine Ingram; Steven M McPhail Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 2.692