Inpatient Falls

Cumbler, Ethan; Simpson, Jennifer; Rosenthal, Laura; Likosky, David

doi:10.1177/1941874412470665

Cited by 44 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A full table of contents appears in online Appendix 1. Additionally, portions of the curriculum have been published online 21, 22. Topic selection was guided by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core geriatrics topics determined most relevant for the inpatient setting.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a hospitalist‐run acute care for the elderly service

Wald

Glasheen

Guerrasio

et al. 2011

Journal of Hospital Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:Comprehensive care for frail older inpatients may improve selected outcomes and reduce harm.OBJECTIVE:To evaluate a Hospitalist‐run Acute Care for the Elderly (Hospitalist‐ACE) service.DESIGN:Quasi‐randomized, controlled trial.SETTING:Urban academic medical center.PATIENTS:Medical inpatients age ≥70 years.INTERVENTION:Hospitalist‐ACE service components: 1) selected hospitalist attendings; 2) daily interdisciplinary rounds; 3) standardized geriatric assessment; 4) clinical focus on mitigating harm and discharge planning; 5) novel inpatient geriatrics curriculum.MEASURES:The primary outcome was recognition of abnormal functional status by the primary medical team. Secondary outcomes included: recognition of abnormal cognitive status and delirium by the primary medical team; use of physical restraints and sleep aids; documentation of code status; hospital charges, length of stay, readmission rates, discharge location, and falls.RESULTS:One hundred twenty‐two Hospitalist‐ACE patients were compared to 95 usual care patients. Hospitalist‐ACE patients had significantly greater recognition of abnormal functional status (65% vs 32%, P < 0.0001), and abnormal cognitive status (57% vs 36%, P = 0.02), and greater use of “Do Not Attempt Resuscitation” orders (39% vs 26%, P = 0.04). There were no differences in use of physical restraints, or sleep aids, falls, or discharge location. Hospitalist‐ACE patients and usual care patients had similar mean lengths of stay in days (3.4 ± 2.7 vs 3.1 ± 2.7, P = 0.52), mean charges ($24,617 ± $15,828 vs $21,488 ± $13,407, P = 0.12), and 30‐day readmission rates (12% vs 10%, P = 0.50).CONCLUSIONS:A Hospitalist‐ACE service may improve care processes without significantly increasing resource consumption. No impact on key clinical outcomes was observed. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2011;6:313–321. © 2011 Society of Hospital Medicine

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a hospitalist‐run acute care for the elderly service

Wald

Glasheen

Guerrasio

et al. 2011

Journal of Hospital Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the patients who were judged as being at high risk by the STRATIFY score did not fall, and intervention for the high-risk patients often ended up being wasted. Therefore, cost-effectiveness analysis is necessary to use the STRATIFY score as a tool for target intervention for patients who have been assessed as being at high risk for falls (Cumbler, Simpson, Rosenthal, & Likosky, 2013 and meta-analysis of the STRATIFY score and suggested that the STRATIFY score should not be used in isolation (Billington, Fahey, & Galvin, 2012). Rather, they suggested that the tool could be used in step 1 of a fall management strategy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the STRATIFY Falls Risk Assessment Tool in a Japanese Acute Care Hospital Setting

Toyabe¹,

Kaneko²,

Suzuki³

et al. 2016

GJHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient falls are the most frequent adverse events that occur in a hospital. Prevention of inpatient falls is performed by a strategy to target patients at high risk for falls determined by a falls risk assessment system such as the STRATIFY tool. However, the performance of the STRATIFY tool in a Japanese hospital setting has not been determined. We tried to verify the performance of the STRATIFY tool for predicting falls in acutely hospitalized patients in Japan by a multi-center study. A total of 113,413 patients admitted to four acute cares national university hospitals during the period from April 2010 to March 2012 were studied. Inpatient falls per 1,000 patient-days varied from 1.42 to 2.92 in the four hospitals. The STRATIFY score was calculated on the basis of data extracted electronically from the hospital information system. Although the distribution of STRATIFY scores differed significantly among the four hospitals, logistic regression analysis and survival analysis showed that the proportion of high-risk patients who fell was significantly larger than the proportion of low-risk patients in all of the four hospitals. The odds ratio and hazard ratio for high-risk patients versus low-risk patients were 2.5 to 4.3 (combined estimate, 3.9 (95% confidence interval (95% CI), 2.1 to 7.6) and 1.8 to 5.1 (combined estimate, 3.1 (95% CI, 2.1 to 4.6)), respectively. The results suggest that the STRATIFY tool can be used as a screening tool to detect patients at high risk for falls in a Japanese acute care setting as used commonly in other countries.

show abstract

“…Rumah sakit mengembangkan dan meneraplan proses untuk mengurangi risiko cedera akibat pasien jatuh sebagai upaya mencegah terjadinya insiden ini (JCI, 2014). Tenaga kesehatan perlu mempertimbangkan faktor penyebab ganggungan keseimbangan atau faktor lain sebagai penyebab pasien cedera akibat pasien jatuh dan diidentifikasi sebagai faktor risiko pengobatan (Barker, Kamar, Graco, Lawlor, & Hill, 2011;Chan, Wadsley, & Ferriere, 2017;Cumbler, Simpson, Rosenthal, & Likosky, 2013;Hoffmann, Neumann, Golgert, & von Renteln-Kruse, 2015;Hung et al, 2017;Latt, Loh, Ge, & Hepworth, 2016;Milisen et al, 2007;Oliver, Britton, Seed, Martin, & Hopper, 1997).…”

Section: Gambar 6 Jumlah Dan Variasi Insiden Terkait Skp6unclassified

Tren Insiden Berdasarkan Sasaran Keselamatan Pasien

Budi¹,

Sunartini²,

Lazuardi³

et al. 2019

JurnalMIKI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incidents related to patient safety indicators for patients in hospitals. Monitoring incidents have done through analysis of incident reports. This article describes incidents based on 6 patient safety goals.Type of descriptive quantitative research with cross-sectional design. The research location is a one of Type B teaching hospital in the Special Region of Yogyakarta. The study population is a report on incidents in 2017.The number of incidents reported in 2017 was 138 incidents consisting of incidents related to SKP.1 to SKP.6 and facilityrelated incidents were 31.88%; 7.97%; 41.30%; 2.90%; 1.45%; 13.04%; and 1.45% of facilities related incidents. Conclusion: Regular monitoring of incident rates and timely reporting feedback processes are good learning to avoid second incidents.

show abstract

Inpatient Falls

Cited by 44 publications

References 72 publications

Evaluation of a hospitalist‐run acute care for the elderly service

Evaluation of a hospitalist‐run acute care for the elderly service

Validation of the STRATIFY Falls Risk Assessment Tool in a Japanese Acute Care Hospital Setting

Tren Insiden Berdasarkan Sasaran Keselamatan Pasien

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About