Examining the Relationship Between Environmental Factors and Inpatient Hospital Falls: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Patient falls are the most common adverse events reported in hospitals. Although it is well understood that the physical hospital environment contributes to nearly 40% of severe or fatal hospital falls, there are significant gaps in the knowledge about the relationship between inpatient unit design and fall rates. The few studies that have examined unit design have been conducted in a single hospital (non-Veterans Health Administration [VHA]) or a small number of inpatient units, limiting generalizability. The goal of this study is to identify unit design factors contributing to inpatient falls in the VHA. OBJECTIVE: The first aim of the study is to investigate frontline and management perceptions of and experiences with veteran falls as they pertain to inpatient environmental factors. An iterative rapid assessment process will be used to analyze the data. Interview findings will directly inform the development of an environmental assessment survey to be conducted as part of aim 2 and to contribute to interpretation of aim 2. The second aim of this study is to quantify unit design factors and compare spatial and environmental factors of units with higher- versus lower-than-expected fall rates. METHODS: We will first conduct walk-through interviews with facility personnel in 10 medical/surgical units at 3 VHA medical centers to identify environmental fall risk factors. Data will be used to finalize an environmental assessment survey for nurse managers and facilities managers. We will then use fall data from the VA Inpatient Evaluation Center and patient data from additional sources to identify 50 medical/surgical nursing units with higher- and lower-than-expected fall rates. We will measure spatial factors by analyzing computer-aided design files of unit floorplans and environmental factors from the environmental assessment survey. Statistical tests will be performed to identify design factors that distinguish high and low outliers. RESULTS: The VA Health Services Research and Development Service approved funding for the study. The research protocol was approved by institutional review boards and VA research committees at both sites. Data collection started in February 2018. Results of the data analysis are expected by February 2022. Data collection and analysis was completed for aim 1 with a manuscript of results in progress. For aim 2, the medical/surgical units were categorized into higher- and lower-than-expected fall categories, the environmental assessment surveys were distributed to facility managers and nurse managers. Data to measure spatial characteristics are being compiled. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first to objectively identify spatial risks for falls in hospitals within in a large multihospital system. Findings can contribute to evidence-based design guidelines for hospitals such as those of the Facility Guidelines Institute and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The metrics for characterizing spatial features are quantitative indices that could be incorporated in larger scale contextual studies examining contributors to falls, which to date often exclude physical environmental factors at the unit level. Space syntax measures could be used as physical environmental factors in future research examining a range of contextual factors-social, personal, organizational, and environmental-that contribute to patient falls. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/24974.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,086 | 0,073 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,066 | 0,013 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».