Patient falls: acute care nurses’ experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the findings from a qualitative study exploring acute care nurses' experiences with patient falls. BACKGROUND: Patient falls continue to be a problem in acute care settings for nurses at the point of care. Despite the growing body of knowledge related to risk factors and interventions for fall prevention, minimal attention has been given to nurses' perspectives of patient falls. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive design was used. METHOD: Focus group discussions were conducted with nurses working on a cross-section of inpatient acute care settings. Audio-taped sessions were transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Nurses described their experience of falls as 'knowing the patient as safe', an ongoing affirmation that the patient was free from harm. In this focused, narrowly defined and highly specific knowing, nurses employed the key strategies of assessment, monitoring and communicating. Variable conditions influenced whether these strategies were effective in giving nurses the knowledge they needed to keep the patient safe. When strategies failed to provide nurses with knowledge of their patients as safe and patients fell, this created considerable stress for nurses and prompted them to use a range of coping strategies. CONCLUSION: Knowing the patient as safe has the potential to resolve the tension between patient safety and independence. The critical, often taken for granted, activities used by nurses in this knowing must be expanded to include the meaning falls have for patients and attend to factors beyond nurses control such as environmental redesign and staffing. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses play an important role in fall prevention through knowing the patient as safe but must be supported through the use of a multi-faceted approach extending from the individual nurse to the institutional level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".