Dataset Information

The epidemiology of falls in Portugal: An analysis of hospital admission data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Falls are a common cause of injury and pose an increased risk of morbidity, mortality, and lifelong disability. Falls encompass a troublesome definition and can pose challenges in epidemiological studies. Data on fall-related hospital admissions in Portugal remain unpublished. This study aimed to examine the epidemiology of fall-related hospital admissions in the Portuguese population between 2010 and 2018. It also aimed to examine annual rates of fall-related hospital admissions using three methodological approaches.

Methods

The Portuguese Hospital Morbidity Database was used to identify all cases resulting in one or more inpatient admission in public hospitals related to falls from 2010 to 2018. Fall-related hospital admissions were described by age groups, sex, geographical area of residence, and type of fall. Annual rates were computed using three approaches: i) based on the number of inpatient admissions with an ICD code of fall, ii) based on the number of patients admitted to inpatient care with an ICD code of fall, and iii) based on the number of inpatient admissions with a principal diagnosis of injury.

Results

Between 2010 and 2018, 383,016 fall-related admissions occurred in 344,728 patients, corresponding to 2.1% of the total number of hospitalizations during the same period. Higher rates were seen among the younger (20-25) and the oldest age groups (+85), males until the age of 60, females from the age of 60, and areas of residence with a higher aging index. An overall rate of falls per 100,000 population was estimated at 414 (based on number of admissions), 373 (based on number of patients) and 353 (based on number of admissions with a principal diagnosis of injury).

Conclusions

This study provides an overall picture of the landscape of falls in a scarcely explored setting. The results aim to contribute to identifying appropriate preventive interventions and policies for these populations.

SUBMITTER: Sampaio F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8694436 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceFalls have been associated with morbidity and mortality in elderly patients. Assessment of frailty at hospital admission may help health care professionals evaluate fall risk in patients with trauma-related injury.ObjectiveTo determine whether frailty assessed using the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale is associated with readmission for falls after index admission for trauma-related injury in patients aged 50 years and older.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study reviewed the medical records of 804 patients aged 50 years and older with trauma-related injury who were admitted to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2015. Records were reviewed from May 30 to August 1, 2017, and patient demographics, admission data, injury severity scores, history of falls, and postindex readmission data for ground-level falls were recorded. Frailty scores were calculated using the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale. Patients with a score of 5 or higher were classified as frail.Main outcomes and measuresFrailty assessed using the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale and readmission for falls after index admission for trauma-related injury.ResultsA total of 804 patients with trauma-related injury were included in the study. The mean (SD) age was 70 (13.4) years; 744 patients (93.4%) were white, and 380 (47.3%) were men. Among the total population, the mortality rate was 3.7%; 255 patients (31.7%) were classified as frail and 549 (68.3%) as nonfrail. The mean (SD) injury severity score was 9.8 (7.9), and the score was similar between frail and nonfrail patients. Of 255 frail patients, 179 (70.2%) were women, and frail patients were significantly older than nonfrail patients (mean [SD], 79.2 [12.1] years vs 66.2 [11.9] years, respectively; P < .001). The percentages of frail patients presenting to the hospital with a history of falls and readmitted for falls after index admission were higher than those of nonfrail patients (63 [24.8%] vs 53 [9.6%] and 55 [21.6%] vs 58 [10.6%], respectively; both P < .001). Frailty was associated with discharge to the home with health care (odds ratio [OR], 4.82; 95% CI, 2.10-11.01; P < .001), to a skilled nursing facility (OR, 5.47; 95% CI, 3.40-8.80; P < .001), and to a hospice care facility (OR, 8.47; 95% CI, 2.09-34.42; P = .003) compared with discharge to the home with self-care. Frailty was also associated with readmission for falls after index admission (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.39-3.66; P = .001) and the number of falls within 1 year after index admission (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.04-1.67; P = .02) compared with nonfrailty. The frailty analysis was controlled for age, body mass index, sex, and falls at index admission.Conclusions and relevanceMeasurement of frailty at hospital admission may be an effective tool to assess fall risk and discharge disposition among patients with trauma-related injury aged 50 years and older.

Project description:Avoidance of admission through provision of hospital care at home is a scheme whereby health care professionals provide active treatment in the patient's home for a condition that would otherwise require inpatient treatment in an acute care hospital. We sought to compare the effectiveness of this method of caring for patients with that type of in-hospital care.We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and EconLit databases and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group register from the earliest date in each database until January 2008. We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated a service providing an alternative to admission to an acute care hospital. We excluded trials in which the program did not offer a substitute for inpatient care. We performed meta-analyses for trials for which the study populations had similar characteristics and for which common outcomes had been measured.We included 10 randomized trials (with a total of 1327 patients) in our systematic review. Seven of these trials (with a total of 969 patients) were deemed eligible for meta-analysis of individual patient data, but we were able to obtain data for only 5 of these trials (with a total of 844 patients [87%]). There was no significant difference in mortality at 3 months for patients who received hospital care at home (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.09, p = 0.15). However, at 6 months, mortality was significantly lower for these patients (adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.87, p = 0.005). Admissions to hospital were greater, but not significantly so, for patients receiving hospital care at home (adjusted HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.96-2.33, p = 0.08). Patients receiving hospital care at home reported greater satisfaction than those receiving inpatient care. These programs were less expensive than admission to an acute care hospital ward when the analysis was restricted to treatment actually received and when the costs of informal care were excluded.For selected patients, avoiding admission through provision of hospital care at home yielded similar outcomes to inpatient care, at a similar or lower cost.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The UK government is pursuing policies to improve primary care access, as many patients visit accident and emergency (A and E) departments after being unable to get suitable general practice appointments. Direct admission to hospital via a general practitioner (GP) averts A and E use, and may reduce total hospital costs. It could also enhance the continuity of information between GPs and hospital doctors, possibly improving healthcare outcomes. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether primary care access is associated with the route of emergency admission-via a GP versus via an A and E department. METHODS:Retrospective analysis of national administrative data from English hospitals for 2011-2012. Adults admitted in an emergency (unscheduled) for ?1 night via a GP or an A and E department formed the study population. The measure of primary care access-the percentage of patients able to get a general practice appointment on their last attempt-was derived from a large, nationally representative patient survey. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate associations, adjusting for patient and admission characteristics. RESULTS:The analysis included 2?322?112 emergency admissions (81.9% via an A and E department). With a 5?unit increase in the percentage of patients able to get a general practice appointment on their last attempt, the adjusted odds of GP admission (vs A and E admission) was estimated to increase by 15% (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.17). The probability of GP admission if ?95% of appointment attempts were successful in each general practice was estimated to be 19.6%. This probability reduced to 13.6% when <80% of appointment attempts were successful. This equates to 139?673 fewer GP admissions (456?232 vs 316?559) assuming no change in the total number of admissions. Associations were consistent in direction across geographical regions of England. CONCLUSIONS:Among hospital inpatients admitted as an emergency, patients registered to more accessible general practices were more likely to have been admitted via a GP (vs an A and E department). This furthers evidence suggesting that access to general practice is related to use of emergency hospital services in England. The relative merits of the two admission routes remain unclear.