Dataset Information

The Geriatric Acute and Post-Acute Fall Prevention Intervention (GAPcare) II to Assess the Use of the Apple Watch in Older Emergency Department Patients With Falls: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Falls are a common problem among older adults that lead to injury, emergency department (ED) visits, and institutionalization. The Apple Watch can detect falls and alert caregivers and clinicians that help is needed; the device could also be used to objectively collect data on gait, fitness, and falls as part of clinical trials. However, little is known about the ease of use of this technology among older adult ED patients, a population at high risk of recurrent falls.

Objective

The goal of this study-the Geriatric Acute and Post-Acute Fall Prevention Intervention (GAPcare) II-is to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of the Apple Watch Series 4 paired with the iPhone and our research app Rhode Island FitTest (RIFitTest) among older adult ED patients seeking care for falls.

Methods

We will conduct field-testing with older adult ED patients (n=25) who sustained a fall and their caregivers (n=5) to determine whether they can use the Apple Watch, iPhone, and app either (1) continuously or (2) periodically, with or without telephone assistance from the research staff, to assess gait, fitness, and/or falls over time. During the initial encounter, participants will receive training in the Apple Watch, iPhone, and our research app. They will receive an illustrated training manual and a number to call if they have questions about the research protocol or device usage. Participants will complete surveys and cognitive and motor assessments on the app during the study period. At the conclusion of the study, we will solicit participant feedback through semistructured interviews. Qualitative data will be summarized using framework matrix analyses. Sensor and survey response data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Recruitment began in December 2019 and was on pause from April 2020 until September 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Study recruitment will continue until 30 participants are enrolled. This study has been approved by the Rhode Island Hospital Institutional Review Board (approval 1400781-16).

Conclusions

GAPcare II will provide insights into the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of the Apple Watch, iPhone, and the RIFitTest app in the population most likely to benefit from the technology: older adults at high risk of recurrent falls. In the future, wearables could be used as part of fall prevention interventions to prevent injury before it occurs.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04304495; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04304495.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

DERR1-10.2196/24455.

SUBMITTER: Strauss DH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8050745 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Three million US emergency department (ED) visits occur for falls each year. The mortality of falls is increasing and only one fourth of older adults report their fall to their primary care provider, suggesting that valuable preventative opportunities are missed. A fall prevention intervention initiated in the ED immediately after a fall has the potential to reduce subsequent falls, but ED providers lack the time and resources to complete fall risk assessments on their patients. GAPcare, the Geriatric Acute and Post-Acute Fall Prevention Intervention, was developed to address this need. Methods:GAPcare combines a pharmacist-led medication therapy management intervention with a physical therapist (PT)-administered fall risk assessment and disposition planning. A key objective of this pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to create a patient and caregiver-centric intervention. This manuscript reports on the results of the qualitative companion study in which we conducted in-depth interviews with patients and caregivers to determine their lived experience with the intervention, barriers and perceived impact of the intervention, and to obtain their recommendations for the improvement of GAPcare. We recruited patients and their caregivers from the RCT into 30 minutes interviews in the participants' home singularly or in dyads (patient and caregiver together). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and double-coded. We used applied thematic analysis to guide the data analysis. Results:We conducted 20 interviews; patients (n=12), caregivers (n=11). Patients were on average 83 years old, 7/12 were female, and 2/14 had cognitive impairment. 6/11 caregiver interviews were in reference to a patient with dementia. Patients and caregivers reported they embraced the experience of motivational interviewing elements, citing its collaborative and inclusive nature. Caregivers in particular said they felt that PT helped their loved one recognize and overcome functional limitations. Barriers included lack of time, the burden of coordinating multiple service providers once home, and concerns that PT would be ineffective or increase pain. Areas for improvement included better screening for those who would benefit from the individual components (pharmacy vs. PT consultation), improving identification of GAPcare pharmacists and PTs vs. other hospital staff in the ED, and expanding the role of GAPcare personnel to provide culturally competent, comprehensive care to improve adherence and medication education. Conclusions:We found that GAPcare, a new team-based intervention for fall prevention in the ED, was welcomed by patients and their caregivers. Several suggestions to improve the intervention were made that will inform the screening, content, and communication with patients in GAPcare.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Falls are the leading cause of traumatic mortality in geriatric adults. Despite recent multispecialty guideline recommendations that advocate for proactive fall prevention protocols in the emergency department (ED), the ability of risk factors or risk stratification instruments to identify subsets of geriatric patients at increased risk for short-term falls is largely unexplored. OBJECTIVES:This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of ED-based history, physical examination, and fall risk stratification instruments with the primary objective of providing a quantitative estimate for each risk factor's accuracy to predict future falls. A secondary objective was to quantify ED fall risk assessment test and treatment thresholds using derived estimates of sensitivity and specificity. METHODS:A medical librarian and two emergency physicians (EPs) conducted a medical literature search of PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, DARE, the Cochrane Registry, and Clinical Trials. Unpublished research was located by a hand search of emergency medicine (EM) research abstracts from national meetings. Inclusion criteria for original studies included ED-based assessment of pre-ED or post-ED fall risk in patients 65 years and older with sufficient detail to reproduce contingency tables for meta-analysis. Original study authors were contacted for additional details when necessary. The Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) was used to assess individual study quality for those studies that met inclusion criteria. When more than one qualitatively similar study assessed the same risk factor for falls at the same interval following an ED evaluation, then meta-analysis was performed using Meta-DiSc software. The primary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for fall risk factors or risk stratification instruments. Secondary outcomes included estimates of test and treatment thresholds using the Pauker method based on accuracy, screening risk, and the projected benefits or harms of fall prevention interventions in the ED. RESULTS:A total of 608 unique and potentially relevant studies were identified, but only three met our inclusion criteria. Two studies that included 660 patients assessed 29 risk factors and two risk stratification instruments for falls in geriatric patients in the 6 months following an ED evaluation, while one study of 107 patients assessed the risk of falls in the preceding 12 months. A self-report of depression was associated with the highest positive likelihood ratio (LR) of 6.55 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.41 to 30.48). Six fall predictors were identified in more than one study (past falls, living alone, use of walking aid, depression, cognitive deficit, and more than six medications) and meta-analysis was performed for these risk factors. One screening instrument was sufficiently accurate to identify a subset of geriatric ED patients at low risk for falls with a negative LR of 0.11 (95% CI = 0.06 to 0.20). The test threshold was 6.6% and the treatment threshold was 27.5%. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates the paucity of evidence in the literature regarding ED-based screening for risk of future falls among older adults. The screening tools and individual characteristics identified in this study provide an evidentiary basis on which to develop screening protocols for geriatrics adults in the ED to reduce fall risk.

Project description:BackgroundFalls are the leading cause of fatal and non-fatal injuries among older adults. Older emergency department (ED) patients who present for evaluations after falls have a 30% higher risk of falling again in the subsequent 6 months than age-matched controls. Although EDs frequently evaluate older adults after their falls, the typical evaluation consists of an injury assessment alone. As such, an opportunity is lost to assess and address the potential causes of falls in this vulnerable population. In this manuscript, we present a multidisciplinary fall prevention protocol for a pilot study of older adult ED patients who recently sustained a fall (GAPcare: the Geriatric Acute and Post-acute Fall Prevention Intervention).MethodsGAPcare is a randomized single-blinded pilot study. Participants in GAPcare are 120 older adults (≥ 65 years old) who present to 1 of 2 academic US EDs after a fall. We randomly assign participants 1:1 to an intervention or a usual care (control) arm. In the intervention arm, the patient's ED physician, a pharmacist, and a physical therapist (PT) collaborate to identify and address any risk factors that may have contributed to the fall. Intervention arm participants and their caregivers return home with a medication-related action plan to taper or stop potentially inappropriate medications and to address polypharmacy and a PT assessment and plan. Participants in the usual care arm receive standard assessments and care in the ED and a home safety brochure. Participants in both study arms complete fall calendars for 6 months to document the number of falls and healthcare visits during follow-up. The primary outcome is feasibility of the GAPcare fall prevention intervention (number and proportion of screened participants who are eligible, recruited, and retained; impact on ED length of stay), while the secondary outcome is to estimate its initial efficacy.DiscussionThe GAPcare-ED fall prevention intervention has the potential to promote older adult-sensitive care for millions of Americans presenting to EDs after falls and establish a protocol for a future large-scale randomized controlled trial on this topic.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03360305. Trial registration date: December 4, 2017. Protocol version: 1.

Project description:ObjectiveGiven the aging population and growing burden of frailty, we conducted this scoping review to describe the available literature regarding the use and impact of frailty assessment tools in the assessment and care of emergency department (ED) patients older than 60 years.MethodsA search was made of the available literature using the Covidence system using various search terms. Inclusion criteria comprised peer-reviewed literature focusing on frailty screening tools used for a geriatric population (60+ years of age) presenting to EDs. An additional search of PubMed, EBSCO, and CINAHL for articles published in the last 5 years was conducted toward the end of the review process (January 2023) to search specifically for literature describing interventions for frailty, yielding additional articles for review. Exclusion criteria comprised articles focusing on an age category other than geriatric and care environments outside the emergency care setting.ResultsA total of 135 articles were screened for inclusion and 48 duplicates were removed. Of the 87 remaining articles, 20 were deemed irrelevant, leaving 67 articles for full-text review. Twenty-eight were excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria, leaving 39 full-text studies. Use of frailty screening tools were reported in the triage, care, and discharge decision-making phases of the ED care trajectory, with varying reports of usefulness for clinical decision-making.ConclusionThe literature reports tools, scales, and instruments for identifying frailty in older patients at ED triage; multiple frailty scores or tools exist with varying levels of utilization. Interventions for frailty directed at the ED environment were scant. Further research is needed to determine the usefulness of frailty identification in the context of emergency care, the effects of care delivery interventions or educational initiatives for front-line medical professionals on patient-oriented outcomes, and to ensure these initiatives are acceptable for patients.