Dataset Information

The SAFEST review: a mixed methods systematic review of shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injury prevention.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Shock-absorbing flooring may minimise impact forces incurred from falls to reduce fall-related injuries; however, synthesized evidence is required to inform decision-making in hospitals and care homes.

Methods

This is a Health Technology Assessment mixed methods systematic review of flooring interventions targeting older adults and staff in care settings. Our search incorporated the findings from a previous scoping review, MEDLINE, AgeLine, and Scopus (to September 2019) and other sources. Two independent reviewers selected, assessed, and extracted data from studies. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute tools, undertook meta-analyses, and meta-aggregation.

Results

20 of 22 included studies assessed our outcomes (3 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs); 7 observational; 5 qualitative; 5 economic), on novel floors (N = 12), sports floors (N = 5), carpet (N = 5), and wooden sub-floors (N = 1). Quantitative data related to 11,857 patient falls (9 studies), and 163 staff injuries (1 study). One care home-based RCT found a novel underlay produced similar injurious falls rates (high-quality evidence) and falls rates (moderate-quality evidence) to a plywood underlay with vinyl overlay and concrete sub-floors. Very low-quality evidence suggested that shock-absorbing flooring may reduce injuries in hospitals (Rate Ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84, 2 studies; 27.1% vs. 42.4%; Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.93, 2 studies) and care homes (26.4% vs. 33.0%; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.91, 3 studies), without increasing falls. Economic evidence indicated that if injuries are fewer and falls not increased, then shock-absorbing flooring would be a dominant strategy. Fracture outcomes were imprecise; however, hip fractures reduced from 30 in 1000 falls on concrete to 18 in 1000 falls on wooden sub-floors (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.78; one study; very low-quality evidence). Staff found moving wheeled equipment harder on shock-absorbing floors leading to workplace adaptations. Very low-quality evidence suggests staff injuries were no less frequent on rigid floors.

Conclusion

Evidence favouring shock-absorbing flooring is uncertain and of very low quality. Robust research following a core outcome set is required, with attention to wider staff workplace implications.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42019118834 .

SUBMITTER: Drahota A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8739972 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Falls in hospitals and care homes are a major issue of international concern. Inpatient falls are the most commonly reported safety incident in the UK's National Health Service (NHS), costing the NHS £630?million a year. Injurious falls are particularly life-limiting and costly. There is a growing body of evidence on shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injury prevention; however, no systematic review exists to inform practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will systematically identify, appraise and summarise studies investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness, and experiences of shock-absorbing flooring in hospitals and care homes. Our search will build on an extensive search conducted by a scoping review (inception to May 2016). We will search electronic databases (AgeLine, CINAHL, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Scopus and Web of Science; May 2016-present), trial registries and grey literature. We will conduct backward and forward citation searches of included studies, and liaise with study researchers. We will evaluate the influence of floors on fall-related injuries, falls and staff work-related injuries through randomised and non-randomised studies, consider economic and qualitative evidence, and implementation factors. We will consider risk of bias, assess heterogeneity and explore potential effect modifiers via subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses. Where appropriate we will combine studies through meta-analysis. We will use the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach to evaluate the quality of evidence and present the results using summary of findings tables, and adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:We will follow the ethical principles of systematic review conduct, by attending to publication ethics, transparency and rigour. Our dissemination plan includes peer-reviewed publication, presentations, press release, stakeholder symposium, patient video and targeted knowledge-to-action reports. This review will inform decision-making around falls management in care settings and identify important directions for future research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019118834.

Project description:BackgroundFall-related injuries exert an enormous health burden on older adults in long-term care (LTC). Softer landing surfaces, such as those provided by low-stiffness "compliant" flooring, may prevent fall-related injuries by decreasing the forces applied to the body during fall impact. Our primary objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness of compliant flooring at preventing serious fall-related injuries among LTC residents.Methods and findingsThe Flooring for Injury Prevention (FLIP) Study was a 4-year, randomized superiority trial in 150 single-occupancy resident rooms at a single Canadian LTC site. In April 2013, resident rooms were block randomized (1:1) to installation of intervention compliant flooring (2.54 cm SmartCells) or rigid control flooring (2.54 cm plywood) covered with identical hospital-grade vinyl. The primary outcome was serious fall-related injury over 4 years that required an emergency department visit or hospital admission and a treatment procedure or diagnostic evaluation in hospital. Secondary outcomes included minor fall-related injury, any fall-related injury, falls, and fracture. Outcomes were ascertained by blinded assessors between September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2017 and analyzed by intention to treat. Adverse outcomes were not assessed. During follow-up, 184 residents occupied 74 intervention rooms, and 173 residents occupied 76 control rooms. Residents were 64.3% female with mean (SD) baseline age 81.7 (9.5) years (range 51.1 to 104.6 years), body mass index 25.9 (7.7) kg/m2, and follow-up 1.64 (1.39) years. 1,907 falls were reported; 23 intervention residents experienced 38 serious injuries (from 29 falls in 22 rooms), while 23 control residents experienced 47 serious injuries (from 34 falls in 23 rooms). Compliant flooring did not affect odds of ≥1 serious fall-related injury (12.5% intervention versus 13.3% control, odds ratio [OR]: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.84, p = 0.950) or ≥2 serious fall-related injuries (5.4% versus 7.5%, OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.75, p = 0.500). Compliant flooring did not affect rate of serious fall-related injuries (0.362 versus 0.422 per 1,000 bed nights, rate ratio [RR]: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.39, p = 0.925; 0.038 versus 0.053 per fall, RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.71, p = 0.560), rate of falls with ≥1 serious fall-related injury (0.276 versus 0.303 per 1,000 bed nights, RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.79, p = 0.920), or time to first serious fall-related injury (0.237 versus 0.257, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.62, p = 0.760). Compliant flooring did not affect any secondary outcome in this study. Study limitations included the following: findings were specific to 2.54 cm SmartCells compliant flooring installed in LTC resident rooms, standard fall and injury prevention interventions were in use throughout the study and may have influenced the observed effect of compliant flooring, and challenges with concussion detection in LTC residents may have prevented estimation of the effect of compliant flooring on fall-related concussions.ConclusionsIn contrast to results from previous retrospective and nonrandomized studies, this study found that compliant flooring underneath hospital-grade vinyl was not effective at preventing serious fall-related injuries in LTC. Future studies are needed to identify effective methods for preventing fall-related injuries in LTC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01618786.

Project description:IntroductionWheelchair users with spinal cord injury are at a high risk of falls. However, the perspectives of wheelchair users with spinal cord injury on their fall circumstances and their preferences for fall prevention strategies/interventions remain understudied. Therefore, we aimed to: a) describe the circumstances of falls experienced by wheelchair users with spinal cord injury over a six-month period, b) explore their perspectives of why falls occurred in certain situations, and c) explore their perspectives on recommended content/structure of fall prevention strategies/interventions.MethodsThis sequential explanatory mixed methods study had two phases. Phase I involved tracking of falls experienced by wheelchair users with spinal cord injury over six months, in which participants completed a survey after experiencing a fall to track the number/circumstance of each fall. Data from the surveys were descriptively reported. Phase II involved a photovoice focus group discussion of the survey findings and their preferences for fall prevention strategies/interventions. Data from the focus group discussion were analyzed using a thematic analysis.ResultsThirty-two participants completed phase I. More than half of the participants fell at least once in six months. Falls commonly occurred in the afternoon during a transfer, or when participants were wheeling over uneven ground. One-third of the falls caused an injury. Eleven participants that fell during phase I participated in the focus group. Two main themes were identified from the discussion: 1) "circumstances surrounding the falls" (e.g. when falls occurred, the home is a 'safe space') and 2) "suggestions and preferences for fall prevention strategies/interventions" (e.g. fall prevention involves all, fall prevention training available as needed).ConclusionFall prevention strategies/interventions should be an integral component of rehabilitation practices across the lifespan. Participants recommend customizing fall prevention strategies/interventions to their specific needs to guide the structure, content, and delivery of targeted fall prevention programs.

Project description:ObjectivesMultifactorial interventions, which involve assessing an individual's risk of falling and providing treatment or onward referral, require coordination across settings. Using a mixed-methods design, we aimed to develop a process map to examine onward referral pathways following falls risk assessment in primary care.SettingPrimary care fall risk assessment clinics in the South of Ireland.ParticipantsFocus groups using participatory mapping techniques with primary care staff (public health nurses (PHNs), physiotherapists (PT),and occupational therapists (OT)) were conducted to plot the processes and onward referral pathways at each clinic (n=5).MethodsFocus groups were analysed in NVivo V.12 using inductive thematic analysis. Routine administrative data from January to March 2018 included details of client referrals, assessments and demographics sourced from referral and assessment forms. Data were analysed in Stata V.12 to estimate the number, origin and focus of onward referrals and whether older adults received follow-up interventions. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed separately and integrated to produce a map of the service.ResultsNine staff participated in three focus groups and one interview (PHN n=2; OT n=4; PT n=3). 85 assessments were completed at five clinics (female n=69, 81.2%, average age 77). The average number of risk factors was 5.4 out of a maximum of 10. Following assessment, clients received an average of three onward referrals. Only one-third of referrals (n=135/201, 33%) had data available on intervention receipt. Primary care staff identified variations in how formally onward referrals were managed and barriers, including a lack of client information, inappropriate referral and a lack of data management support.ConclusionChallenges to onward referral manifest early in an integrated care pathway, such as clients with multiple risk factors sent for initial assessment and the lack of an integrated IT system to share information across settings.

Project description:BackgroundFalls are the most common hospitalized injury mechanism in children aged ≤1 years, and currently, there are no targeted prevention interventions. The prevention of falls in children of this age requires changes in the behavior of their caregivers, and theoretically informed digital behavior change interventions (DBCIs) may provide a unique mechanism for achieving effective intervention. However, user acceptance and the ability of DBCIs to effect the required changes in behavior are critical to their likelihood of success.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate a behavior theory-informed digital intervention developed following a user-centered approach for user experience, the potential for this intervention to prevent infant falls, and its impact on behavioral drivers underpinning fall risk in young children.MethodsParents of infants aged <1 year were recruited and asked to use the intervention for 3 months. A pre-post longitudinal design was used to examine the change in the potential to reduce the risk of falls after a 3-month exposure to the intervention. Postintervention data on behavioral drivers for fall prevention, user acceptability, and engagement with the app were also collected. Interviews were conducted to explore user experiences and identify areas for further improvement of the intervention.ResultsA total of 62 parents participated in the study. A statistically significant effect on the potential to reduce falls was observed after the intervention. This effect was higher for new parents. Parents agreed that the intervention targeted most of the target behavior drivers. The impact of behavior drivers and intervention on the potential for fall prevention had a positive correlation. The intervention demonstrated good levels of acceptability. Feedback from participants was mostly positive, and the primary area identified for further improvement was widening the scope of the intervention.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated the promise of a newly developed digital intervention to reduce the risk of infant falls, particularly among new parents. It also showed a positive influence of the DBCI on the drivers of parental behaviors that are important for fall reduction among infants. The acceptability of the app was high, and important insights were gained from users about how to further improve the app.

Project description:Evidence-based multifactorial fall prevention interventions in clinical practice have been less effective than expected. One plausible reason is that older adults' engagement in fall prevention care is suboptimal. This was a post-hoc analysis of 2403 older adults' engagement in a multifactorial fall prevention intervention in the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) pragmatic trial. Based on the direct clinical care level of the Patient and Family Continuum of Engagement (CE) framework, three indicators of progressively interactive engagement were assessed: (1) Consultation (receiving information), (2) Involvement (prioritizing risks), and (3) Partnership (identifying prevention actions). Drop off at each step was determined as well as predictors of engagement. The participants' engagement waned with increasingly interactive CE domains. Although all participants received information about their positive fall risk factors (consultation) and most (51%-96%) prioritized them (involvement), fewer participants (33%-55%) identified fall prevention actions (partnership) for most of their risk factors, except for strength gait or balance problems (95%). More participants (70%) identified home exercises than other actions. Finally, fall prevention actions were identified more commonly among participants who received two visits compared to one (OR = 2.33 [95% CI, 2.06-2.64]), were ≥80 years old (OR = 1.83 [95% CI, 1.51-2.23]), and had fewer fall risk factors (OR = 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.99]). The drop-off in participants' engagement based on the level of their interaction with clinicians suggests that future multifactorial fall prevention interventions need to be more focused on interactive patient-clinician partnerships that help older adults increase and maintain fall prevention actions. Our analyses suggest that more frequent contact with clinicians and more monitoring of the implementation and outcomes of Fall Prevention Care Plans could potentially improve engagement and help older adults maintain fall prevention actions.