Results:In phase 1 five factors were independently associated with a higher risk of falls: fall as a presenting complaint (odds ratio 4.64 (95% confidence interval 2.59 to 8.33); a transfer and mobility score of 3 or 4 (2.10 (1.22 to 3.61)); and primary nurses' judgment that a patient was agitated (20.9 (9.62 to 45.62)), needed frequent toileting (2.48 (1.08 to 5.70)), and was visually impaired (3.56 (1.26 to 10.05)). A risk assessment score (range 0-5) was derived by scoring one point for each of these five factors. In phases 2 and 3 a risk assessment score > 2 was used to define high risk: the sensitivity and specificity of the score to predict falls during the following week was 93% and 88% respectively in phase 2 and 92% and 68% respectively in phase 3. Conclusion:This simple risk assessment tool predicted with clinically useful sensitivity and specificity a high percentage of falls among elderly hospital inpatients.

a proactive evidence-based CGA service for at-risk older elective surgical patients was developed according to MRC framework for complex interventions. Pre/post comparison in elective orthopaedic patients showed improved (within methodological limitations) post-operative outcomes indicative of better clinical effectiveness and efficiency, and contributed to the service obtaining mainstream funding. Informed by the present study, a randomised controlled trial is ongoing.

The pooled effect of about 25% reduction in the fall rate may be a result of intervention but may also be biased by studies that used historical controls not allowing for historical trends in the fall rate before and during the intervention. The randomized controlled trials apparent lack of effect might be due to a change in practice when patients and controls were in the same unit at the same time during a study. Studies did not analyze compliance with the intervention or opportunity costs resulting from the intervention. Research and clinical programs in hospital fall prevention should pay more attention to study design and the nature of interventions.

Background:Clinical uncertainty is emotionally challenging for patients and carers and creates additional pressures for those clinicians in acute hospitals. The AMBER care bundle was designed to improve care for patients identified as clinically unstable, deteriorating, with limited reversibility and at risk of dying in the next 1–2 months.Aim:To examine the experience of care supported by the AMBER care bundle compared to standard care in the context of clinical uncertainty, deterioration and limited reversibility.Design:A comparative observational mixed-methods study using semi-structured qualitative interviews and a followback survey.Setting/participants:Three large London acute tertiary National Health Service hospitals. Nineteen interviews with 23 patients and carers (10 supported by AMBER care bundle and 9 standard care). Surveys completed by next of kin of 95 deceased patients (59 AMBER care bundle and 36 standard care).Results:The AMBER care bundle was associated with increased frequency of discussions about prognosis between clinicians and patients (χ2 = 4.09, p = 0.04), higher awareness of their prognosis by patients (χ2 = 4.29, p = 0.04) and lower clarity in the information received about their condition (χ2 = 6.26, p = 0.04). Although the consistency and quality of communication were not different between the two groups, those supported by the AMBER care bundle described more unresolved concerns about caring for someone at home.Conclusion:Awareness of prognosis appears to be higher among patients supported by the AMBER care bundle, but in this small study this was not translated into higher quality communication, and information was judged less easy to understand. Adequately powered comparative evaluation is urgently needed.