Revealing the tension: The relationship between high fall risk categorization and low patient mobility.
accidental falls
health services research
inpatients
quality improvement
Journal
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
ISSN: 1532-5415
Titre abrégé: J Am Geriatr Soc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7503062
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2023
05 2023
Historique:
revised:
06
12
2022
received:
30
05
2022
accepted:
08
12
2022
pmc-release:
01
05
2024
medline:
12
5
2023
pubmed:
14
1
2023
entrez:
13
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Using an inpatient fall risk assessment tool helps categorize patients into risk groups which can then be targeted with fall prevention strategies. While potentially important in preventing patient injury, fall risk assessment may unintentionally lead to reduced mobility among hospitalized patients. Here we examined the relationship between fall risk assessment and ambulatory status among hospitalized patients. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutively admitted adult patients (n = 48,271) to a quaternary urban hospital that provides care for patients of broad socioeconomic and demographic backgrounds. Non-ambulatory status, the primary outcome, was defined as a median Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility <6 (i.e., patient walks less than 10 steps) throughout hospitalization. The primary exposure variable was the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT) category (Low, Moderate, High). The capacity to ambulate was assessed using the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC). Multivariable regression analysis controlled for clinical demographics, JHFRAT items, AM-PAC, comorbidity count, and length of stay. 8% of patients at low risk for falls were non-ambulatory, compared to 25% and 54% of patients at moderate and high risk for falls, respectively. Patients categorized as high risk and moderate risk for falls were 4.6 (95% CI: 3.9-5.5) and 2.6 (95% CI: 2.4-2.9) times more likely to be non-ambulatory compared to patients categorized as low risk, respectively. For patients with high ambulatory potential (AM-PAC 18-24), those categorized as high risk for falls were 4.3 (95% CI: 3.5-5.3) times more likely to be non-ambulatory compared to patients categorized as low risk. Patients categorized into higher fall risk groups had decreased mobility throughout their hospitalization, even when they had the functional capacity to ambulate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Using an inpatient fall risk assessment tool helps categorize patients into risk groups which can then be targeted with fall prevention strategies. While potentially important in preventing patient injury, fall risk assessment may unintentionally lead to reduced mobility among hospitalized patients. Here we examined the relationship between fall risk assessment and ambulatory status among hospitalized patients.
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutively admitted adult patients (n = 48,271) to a quaternary urban hospital that provides care for patients of broad socioeconomic and demographic backgrounds. Non-ambulatory status, the primary outcome, was defined as a median Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility <6 (i.e., patient walks less than 10 steps) throughout hospitalization. The primary exposure variable was the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT) category (Low, Moderate, High). The capacity to ambulate was assessed using the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC). Multivariable regression analysis controlled for clinical demographics, JHFRAT items, AM-PAC, comorbidity count, and length of stay.
RESULTS
8% of patients at low risk for falls were non-ambulatory, compared to 25% and 54% of patients at moderate and high risk for falls, respectively. Patients categorized as high risk and moderate risk for falls were 4.6 (95% CI: 3.9-5.5) and 2.6 (95% CI: 2.4-2.9) times more likely to be non-ambulatory compared to patients categorized as low risk, respectively. For patients with high ambulatory potential (AM-PAC 18-24), those categorized as high risk for falls were 4.3 (95% CI: 3.5-5.3) times more likely to be non-ambulatory compared to patients categorized as low risk.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients categorized into higher fall risk groups had decreased mobility throughout their hospitalization, even when they had the functional capacity to ambulate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36637798
doi: 10.1111/jgs.18221
pmc: PMC10175187
mid: NIHMS1860756
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1536-1546Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : KL2 TR003097
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The American Geriatrics Society.
Références
J Adv Nurs. 2016 Sep;72(9):2238-50
pubmed: 27101943
Phys Ther. 2014 Mar;94(3):379-91
pubmed: 24231229
Braz J Phys Ther. 2021 May-Jun;25(3):352-355
pubmed: 32811787
Nurs Health Sci. 2022 Sep;24(3):735-741
pubmed: 35780301
Nurs Outlook. 2018 May - Jun;66(3):254-262
pubmed: 29705382
Phys Ther. 2018 Feb 1;98(2):133-142
pubmed: 29106679
Clin Geriatr Med. 2010 Nov;26(4):645-92
pubmed: 20934615
Lancet. 2015 Jun 27;385(9987):2592-9
pubmed: 25865864
BMJ. 2018 Feb 6;360:k433
pubmed: 29437682
J Hosp Med. 2007 Sep;2(5):305-13
pubmed: 17935241
J Physiother. 2021 Apr;67(2):115-123
pubmed: 33753014
Geriatr Nurs. 2020 Sep - Oct;41(5):608-614
pubmed: 32268947
Age Ageing. 2021 Sep 11;50(5):1499-1507
pubmed: 34038522
Innov Aging. 2017 Nov;1(3):
pubmed: 29911187
Geriatr Nurs. 2021 Mar-Apr;42(2):325-330
pubmed: 33561614
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Jun 1;177(6):759-760
pubmed: 28437517
J Clin Nurs. 2022 Dec;31(23-24):3584-3594
pubmed: 34964175
Disabil Rehabil. 2022 Jul;44(15):4004-4013
pubmed: 33605171
Age Ageing. 2008 May;37(3):248-50
pubmed: 18456789
J Clin Nurs. 2020 Dec;29(23-24):4505-4513
pubmed: 32945020
Int J Older People Nurs. 2018 Sep;13(3):e12200
pubmed: 29770560
J Hosp Med. 2016 May;11(5):341-7
pubmed: 26849277
Syst Rev. 2021 Nov 4;10(1):293
pubmed: 34736531
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Apr;175(4):512-20
pubmed: 25643002
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2012 Sep;38(9):408-13
pubmed: 23002493
BMC Geriatr. 2019 Dec 11;19(1):348
pubmed: 31829166
Phys Ther. 2015 May;95(5):758-66
pubmed: 25504489
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Apr;94(4):304-12
pubmed: 25133615
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Apr;61(4):483-94
pubmed: 23527904
Med Care. 1998 Jan;36(1):8-27
pubmed: 9431328
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2019 Feb;45(2):91-97
pubmed: 30269964
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Sep;57(9):1660-5
pubmed: 19682121
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 Jan;56(1):29-36
pubmed: 18031484
Sentinel Event Alert. 2015 Sep 28;(55):1-5
pubmed: 26422837
Age Ageing. 2022 Sep 2;51(9):
pubmed: 36178003
Lancet Public Health. 2018 Jul;3(7):e323-e332
pubmed: 29908859
J Nurs Care Qual. 2018 Jan/Mar;33(1):10-19
pubmed: 28968337
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 Jan;67(1):11-16
pubmed: 30276809
Res Gerontol Nurs. 2018 Jan 1;11(1):17-27
pubmed: 29370443