Objective To determine the effectiveness of multifactorial intervention after a fall in older patients with cognitive impairment and dementia attending the accident and emergency department. Design Randomised controlled trial. Participants 274 cognitively impaired older people (aged 65 or over) presenting to the accident and emergency department after a fall: 130 were randomised to assessment and intervention and 144 were randomised to assessment followed by conventional care (control group). Setting Two accident and emergency departments, Newcastle upon Tyne. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was number of participants who fell in year after intervention. Secondary outcomes were number of falls (corrected for diary returns), time to first fall, injury rates, fall related attendances at accident and emergency department, fall related hospital admissions, and mortality. Results Intention to treat analysis showed no significant difference between intervention and control groups in proportion of patients who fell during 1 year's follow up (74% (96/130) and 80% (115/144), relative risk ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.05). No significant differences were found between groups for secondary outcome measures. Conclusions Multifactorial intervention was not effective in preventing falls in older people with cognitive impairment and dementia presenting to the accident and emergency department after a fall.

Multifactorial intervention is effective at reducing the fall burden in cognitively intact older persons with recurrent falls attending Accident & Emergency, but does not reduce the proportion of subjects still falling.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a walking/talking program on residents' communication, ambulation, and level of function when there were two residents to one care provider (2:1). A randomized control trial design was used. Subjects were residents with Alzheimer disease in three geriatric long-term care facilities in Metropolitan Toronto. Residents who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to one of three groups: walk-and-talk group (30 min, 5 times per week for 16 weeks, walking/talking in pairs), talk-only group (30 min, 5 times per week for 16 weeks, talk only in pairs), or no intervention. The outcome measures were the Functional Assessment of Communication Skills for Adults, the 2-min walk test, and London Psychogeriatric Rating Scale. Residents who received the walk-and-talk intervention did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in the outcome variables measured posttest when compared with residents who received the talk-only intervention or no intervention, even after controlling for individual differences. Variability in the outcomes measured posttest is explained by differences in the residents' level of cognitive impairment before the study rather than by study group membership. These findings are contradictory to those of previous studies.

It is unknown to what extent frequent callers impact upon EMS resources. Research should identify predictors and characteristics of frequent users of EMS, and a consistent definition of a frequent caller to or user of EMS would provide greater comparability. The lack of studies identified in this review suggests that further research is needed in order to inform policy and practice.

This study sought to determine the effectiveness of telepractice as a method of delivering early intervention services to families of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing. A comparison group design was applied to ascertain the child, family, and provider outcomes via telepractice compared with traditional in-person home visits. A total of 48 children and their families, along with 15 providers from 5 early intervention programs, across the country participated. Children in the telepractice group received more intervention, although the number of prescribed sessions was equal across groups. Analyses of covariance demonstrated that children in the telepractice group scored statistically significantly higher than children in the in-person group on the PLS-5 Receptive Language subscale and PLS-5 Total Language standard scores, and the groups scored similarly on other language measures. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in regard to family outcomes of support, knowledge, and community involvement. Analysis of video recordings of telepractice versus in-person home visits resulted in higher scores for provider responsiveness and parent engagement. This study supports the effectiveness of telepractice in delivering early intervention services to families of children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Further research involving randomized trials with larger, more diverse populations is warranted.