Dataset Information

Divesting from a Scored Hospital Fall Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT): A Cluster Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background/objectives

We investigated the impact of ceasing routine falls risk assessment tool (FRAT) completion and instead used clinical reasoning to select fall mitigation strategies.

Design

Two-group, multi-site cluster-randomized active-control non-inferiority trial.

Setting

Hospital wards.

Participants

Adult inpatients admitted to participating hospitals (n = 10 hospitals, 123,176 bed days).

Intervention

Hospitals were randomly assigned (1:1) to a usual care control group that continued to use a historical FRAT to assign falls risk scores and accompanying mitigation strategies, or an experimental group whereby clinicians did not assign risk scores and instead used clinical reasoning to select fall mitigation strategies using a decision support list.

Measurements

The primary measure was between-group difference in mean fall rates (falls/1000 bed days). Falls were identified from incident reports supplemented by hand searches of medical records over three consecutive months at each hospital. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) of monthly falls rates in control versus experimental hospitals was also estimated.

Results

The experimental clinical reasoning approach was non-inferior to the usual care FRAT that assigned fall risk ratings when compared to a-priori stakeholder derived and sensitivity non-inferiority margins. The mean fall rates were 3.84 falls/1000 bed days for the FRAT continuing sites and 3.11 falls/1000 bed days for experimental sites. After adjusting for historical fall rates at each hospital, the IRR (95%CI) was 0.78 (0.64, 0.95), where IRR < 1.00 indicated fewer falls among the experimental group. There were 4 and 3 serious events in the control and experimental groups, respectively.

Conclusion

Replacing a FRAT scoring system with clinical reasoning did not lead to inferior fall outcomes in the short term and may even reduce fall incidence.

SUBMITTER: Morris ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8518986 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Divesting from a Scored Hospital Fall Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT): A Cluster Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial.

Morris Meg E ME Haines Terry T Hill Anne Marie AM Cameron Ian D ID Jones Cathy C Jazayeri Dana D Mitra Biswadev B Kiegaldie Debra D Shorr Ronald I RI McPhail Steven M SM

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 20210409 9

<h4>Background/objectives</h4>We investigated the impact of ceasing routine falls risk assessment tool (FRAT) completion and instead used clinical reasoning to select fall mitigation strategies.<h4>Design</h4>Two-group, multi-site cluster-randomized active-control non-inferiority trial.<h4>Setting</h4>Hospital wards.<h4>Participants</h4>Adult inpatients admitted to participating hospitals (n = 10 hospitals, 123,176 bed days).<h4>Intervention</h4>Hospitals were randomly assigned (1:1) to a usual ...[more]

PMID: 33834490

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAbout 30% of people over 65 are subject to at least one unintentional fall a year. Fall prevention protocols and interventions can decrease the number of falls. To be effective, a prevention strategy requires a prior step to evaluate the fall risk of the subjects. Despite extensive research, existing assessment tools for fall risk have been insufficient for predicting falls.ObjectiveThe goal of this study is to present a novel web-based fall-risk assessment tool (FRAT-up) and to evaluate its accuracy in predicting falls, within a context of community-dwelling persons aged 65 and up.MethodsFRAT-up is based on the assumption that a subject's fall risk is given by the contribution of their exposure to each of the known fall-risk factors. Many scientific studies have investigated the relationship between falls and risk factors. The majority of these studies adopted statistical approaches, usually providing quantitative information such as odds ratios. FRAT-up exploits these numerical results to compute how each single factor contributes to the overall fall risk. FRAT-up is based on a formal ontology that enlists a number of known risk factors, together with quantitative findings in terms of odds ratios. From such information, an automatic algorithm generates a rule-based probabilistic logic program, that is, a set of rules for each risk factor. The rule-based program takes the health profile of the subject (in terms of exposure to the risk factors) and computes the fall risk. A Web-based interface allows users to input health profiles and to visualize the risk assessment for the given subject. FRAT-up has been evaluated on the InCHIANTI Study dataset, a representative population-based study of older persons living in the Chianti area (Tuscany, Italy). We compared reported falls with predicted ones and computed performance indicators.ResultsThe obtained area under curve of the receiver operating characteristic was 0.642 (95% CI 0.614-0.669), while the Brier score was 0.174. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test indicated statistical significance of miscalibration.ConclusionsFRAT-up is a web-based tool for evaluating the fall risk of people aged 65 or up living in the community. Validation results of fall risks computed by FRAT-up show that its performance is comparable to externally validated state-of-the-art tools. A prototype is freely available through a web-based interface.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01331512 (The InChianti Follow-Up Study); http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01331512 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6UDrrRuaR).

Project description:BackgroundWith the increase in people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa and expanding eligibility criteria for antiretroviral therapy (ART), there is intense interest in the use of novel delivery models that allow understaffed health systems to successfully deal with an increasing demand for antiretroviral drugs (ARVs). This pragmatic randomized controlled trial in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, evaluated a novel model of ARV community delivery: lay health workers (home-based carers [HBCs]) deliver ARVs to the homes of patients who are clinically stable on ART, while nurses and physicians deliver standard facility-based care for patients who are clinically unstable. Specifically, the trial aimed to assess whether the ARV community delivery model performed at least equally well in averting virological failure as the standard of care (facility-based care for all ART patients).Methods and findingsThe study took place from March 1, 2016, to October 27, 2017. All (48) healthcare facilities in Dar es Salaam that provided ART and had an affiliated team of public-sector HBCs were randomized 1:1 to either (i) ARV community delivery (intervention) or (ii) the standard of care (control). Our prespecified primary endpoint was the proportion of adult non-pregnant ART patients with virological failure at the end of the study period. The prespecified margin of non-inferiority was a risk ratio (RR) of 1.45. The mean follow-up period was 326 days. We obtained intent-to-treat (ITT) RRs using a log-binomial model adjusting standard errors for clustering at the level of the healthcare facility. A total of 2,172 patients were enrolled at intervention (1,163 patients) and control (1,009 patients) facilities. Of the 1,163 patients in the intervention arm, 516 (44.4%) were both clinically stable on ART and opted to receive ARVs in their homes or at another meeting point of their choosing in the community. At the end of the study period, 10.9% (95/872) of patients in the control arm and 9.7% (91/943) in the intervention arm were failing virologically. The ITT RR for virological failure demonstrated non-inferiority of the ARV community delivery model (RR 0.89 [1-sided 95% CI 0.00-1.18]). We observed no significant difference between study arms in self-reported patient healthcare expenditures over the last 6 months before study exit. Of those who received ARVs in the community, 97.2% (95% CI 94.7%-98.7%) reported being either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the program. Other than loss to follow-up (18.9% in the intervention and 13.6% in the control arm), the main limitation of this trial was that substantial decongestion of healthcare facilities was not achieved, thus making the logic for our preregistered ITT approach (which includes those ineligible to receive ARVs at home in the intervention sample) less compelling.ConclusionsIn this study, an ARV community delivery model performed at least as well as the standard of care regarding the critical health indicator of virological failure. The intervention did not significantly reduce patient healthcare expenditures, but satisfaction with the program was high and it is likely to save patients time. Policy-makers should consider piloting, evaluating, and scaling more ambitious ARV community delivery programs that can reach higher proportions of ART patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02711293.

Project description:About 85% of Zimbabwe's >1.4 million people living with HIV are on antiretroviral treatment (ART). Further expansion of its treatment program will require more efficient use of existing resources. Two promising strategies for reducing resource utilization per patient are multi-month medication dispensing and community-based service delivery. We evaluated the costs to providers and patients of community-based, multi-month ART delivery models in Zimbabwe. We used resource and outcome data from a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial of three differentiated service delivery (DSD) models targeted to patients stable on ART: 3-month facility-based care (3MF), community ART refill groups (CAGs) with 3-month dispensing (3MC), and CAGs with 6-month dispensing (6MC). Using local unit costs, we estimated the annual cost in 2020 USD of providing HIV treatment per patient from the provider and patient perspectives. In the trial, retention at 12 months was 93.0% in the 3MF, 94.8% in the 3MC, and 95.5% in the 6MC arms. The total average annual cost of HIV treatment per patient was $187 (standard deviation $39), $178 ($30), and $167 ($39) in each of the three arms, respectively. The annual cost/patient was dominated by ART medications (79% in 3MF, 87% in 3MC; 92% in 6MC), followed by facility visits (12%, 5%, 5%, respectively) and viral load (8%, 8%, 2%, respectively). When costs were stratified by district, DSD models cost slightly less, with 6MC the least expensive in all districts. Savings were driven by differences in the number of facility visits made/year, as expected, and low uptake of annual viral load tests in the 6-month arm. The total annual cost to patients to obtain HIV care was $10.03 ($2) in the 3MF arm, $5.12 ($0.41) in the 3MC arm, and $4.40 ($0.39) in the 6MF arm. For stable ART patients in Zimbabwe, 3- and 6-month community-based multi-month dispensing models cost less for both providers and patients than 3-month facility-based care and had non-inferior outcomes.

Project description:Key summary points Aim To assess the JHFRAT performance in a large sample of Dutch older inpatients, including its trend over time. Findings Among 17,263 older hospitalized patients, inpatient falls (2.5%) were identified by searching free text and the problem list. JHFRAT and its subcategories were significantly associated with inpatient falls, but JHFRAT showed low discrimination between fallers and non-fallers and over-prediction in the calibration. Message Falling is a serious adverse event and this paper showed that improvements in fall-risk assessment for older inpatients are warranted to improve efficiency. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-022-00719-0. Purpose Fall prevention is a safety goal in many hospitals. The performance of the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT) in older inpatients is largely unknown. We aimed to assess the JHFRAT performance in a large sample of Dutch older inpatients, including its trend over time. Methods We used an Electronic Health Records (EHR) dataset with hospitalized patients (≥ 70), admitted for ≥ 24 h between 2016 and 2021. Inpatient falls were extracted from structured and free-text data. We assessed the association between JHFRAT and falls using logistic regression. For test accuracy, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Discrimination was measured by the AUC. For calibration, we plotted the predicted fall probability with the actual probability of falls. For time-related effects, we calculated the AUC per 6 months (using data of patients admitted during the 6 months’ time interval) and plotted these different AUC values over time. Furthermore, we compared the model (JHFRAT and falls) with and without adjusting for seasonal influenza, COVID-19, spring, summer, fall or winter periods. Results Data included 17,263 admissions with at least 1 JHFRAT measurement, a median age of 76 and a percentage female of 47%. The in-hospital fall prevalence was 2.5%. JHFRAT [OR = 1.11 (1.03–1.20)] and its subcategories were significantly associated with falls. For medium/high risk of falls (JHFRAT > 5), sensitivity was 73%, specificity 51%, PPV 4% and NPV 99%. The overall AUC was 0.67, varying over time between 0.62 and 0.71 (for 6 months’ time intervals). Seasonal influenza did affect the association between JHFRAT and falls. COVID-19, spring, summer, fall or winter did not affect the association. Conclusions Our results show an association between JHFRAT and falls, a low discrimination by JHFRAT for older inpatients and over-prediction in the calibration. Improvements in the fall-risk assessment are warranted to improve efficiency. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-022-00719-0.

Dataset Information

Divesting from a Scored Hospital Fall Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT): A Cluster Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial.

Background/objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Intervention

Measurements

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Divesting from a Scored Hospital Fall Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT): A Cluster Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets