Nada Hammouda1, Christopher R Carpenter2, William W Hung3, Adriane Lesser4, Sylviah Nyamu5, Shan Liu6, Cameron J Gettel7,8, Aaron Malsch9, Edward M Castillo10, Savannah Forrester11, Kimberly Souffront1, Samuel Vargas5, Elizabeth M Goldberg12,13. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 2. Division of Emergency Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. 3. Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Care, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 4. West Health Institute, La Jolla, California, USA. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York, USA. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, Harvard School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. National Clinician Scholars Program, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 8. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 9. AdvocateAurora Health, Bayside, Wisconsin, USA. 10. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, California, USA. 11. Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 12. Department of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. 13. Department of Emergency Medicine, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although falls are common, costly, and often preventable, emergency department (ED)-initiated fall screening and prevention efforts are rare. The Geriatric Emergency Medicine Applied Research Falls core (GEAR-Falls) was created to identify existing research gaps and to prioritize future fall research foci. METHODS: GEAR's 49 transdisciplinary stakeholders included patients, geriatricians, ED physicians, epidemiologists, health services researchers, and nursing scientists. We derived relevant clinical fall ED questions and summarized the applicable research evidence, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews. The highest-priority research foci were identified at the GEAR Consensus Conference. RESULTS: We identified two clinical questions for our review (1) fall prevention interventions (32 studies) and (2) risk stratification and falls care plan (19 studies). For (1) 21 of 32 (66%) of interventions were a falls risk screening assessment and 15 of 21 (71%) of these were combined with an exercise program or physical therapy. For (2) 11 fall screening tools were identified, but none were feasible and sufficiently accurate for ED patients. For both questions, the most frequently reported study outcome was recurrent falls, but various process and patient/clinician-centered outcomes were used. Outcome ascertainment relied on self-reported falls in 18 of 32 (56%) studies for (1) and nine of 19 (47%) studies for (2). CONCLUSION: Harmonizing definitions, research methods, and outcomes is needed for direct comparison of studies. The need to identify ED-appropriate fall risk assessment tools and role of emergency medical services (EMS) personnel persists. Multifactorial interventions, especially involving exercise, are more efficacious in reducing recurrent falls, but more studies are needed to compare appropriate bundle combinations. GEAR prioritizes five research priorities: (1) EMS role in improving fall-related outcomes, (2) identifying optimal ED fall assessment tools, (3) clarifying patient-prioritized fall interventions and outcomes, (4) standardizing uniform fall ascertainment and measured outcomes, and (5) exploring ideal intervention components.
BACKGROUND: Although falls are common, costly, and often preventable, emergency department (ED)-initiated fall screening and prevention efforts are rare. The Geriatric Emergency Medicine Applied Research Falls core (GEAR-Falls) was created to identify existing research gaps and to prioritize future fall research foci. METHODS: GEAR's 49 transdisciplinary stakeholders included patients, geriatricians, ED physicians, epidemiologists, health services researchers, and nursing scientists. We derived relevant clinical fall ED questions and summarized the applicable research evidence, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews. The highest-priority research foci were identified at the GEAR Consensus Conference. RESULTS: We identified two clinical questions for our review (1) fall prevention interventions (32 studies) and (2) risk stratification and falls care plan (19 studies). For (1) 21 of 32 (66%) of interventions were a falls risk screening assessment and 15 of 21 (71%) of these were combined with an exercise program or physical therapy. For (2) 11 fall screening tools were identified, but none were feasible and sufficiently accurate for ED patients. For both questions, the most frequently reported study outcome was recurrent falls, but various process and patient/clinician-centered outcomes were used. Outcome ascertainment relied on self-reported falls in 18 of 32 (56%) studies for (1) and nine of 19 (47%) studies for (2). CONCLUSION: Harmonizing definitions, research methods, and outcomes is needed for direct comparison of studies. The need to identify ED-appropriate fall risk assessment tools and role of emergency medical services (EMS) personnel persists. Multifactorial interventions, especially involving exercise, are more efficacious in reducing recurrent falls, but more studies are needed to compare appropriate bundle combinations. GEAR prioritizes five research priorities: (1) EMS role in improving fall-related outcomes, (2) identifying optimal ED fall assessment tools, (3) clarifying patient-prioritized fall interventions and outcomes, (4) standardizing uniform fall ascertainment and measured outcomes, and (5) exploring ideal intervention components.
Authors: A Stefanie Mikolaizak; Stephen R Lord; Anne Tiedemann; Paul Simpson; Gideon Caplan; Jason C Bendall; Kirsten Howard; Jacqueline Close Journal: Australas J Ageing Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 2.111
Authors: Jacques S Lee; Mary Jane Hurley; Debra Carew; Rory Fisher; Alex Kiss; Neil Drummond Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Gilles Allali; Cyrille P Launay; Helena M Blumen; Michele L Callisaya; Anne-Marie De Cock; Reto W Kressig; Velandai Srikanth; Jean-Paul Steinmetz; Joe Verghese; Olivier Beauchet Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Ian D Cameron; Suzanne M Dyer; Claire E Panagoda; Geoffrey R Murray; Keith D Hill; Robert G Cumming; Ngaire Kerse Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-09-07
Authors: Gwen Costa Jacobsohn; Margaret Leaf; Frank Liao; Apoorva P Maru; Collin J Engstrom; Megan E Salwei; Gerald T Pankratz; Alexis Eastman; Pascale Carayon; Douglas A Wiegmann; Joel S Galang; Maureen A Smith; Manish N Shah; Brian W Patterson Journal: Healthc (Amst) Date: 2021-12-16
Authors: Katherine M Hunold; Elizabeth M Goldberg; Jeffrey M Caterino; Ula Hwang; Timothy F Platts-Mills; Manish N Shah; Tony Rosen Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Victoria I Barbeau; Leen Madani; Abdulah Al Ameer; Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu; Deirdre Beecher; Monserrat Conde; Tracey E Howe; Sue Marcus; Richard Morley; Mona Nasser; Maureen Smith; Jo Thompson Coon; Vivian A Welch Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-19 Impact factor: 3.006