Shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injury prevention in older adults and staff in hospitals and care homes: the SAFEST systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Injurious falls in hospitals and care homes are a life-limiting and costly international issue. Shock-absorbing flooring may offer part of the solution; however, evidence is required to inform decision-making. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injury prevention among older adults in care settings. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of experimental, observational, qualitative and economic studies evaluating flooring in care settings targeting older adults and/or staff. Studies identified by a scoping review (inception to May 2016) were screened, and the search of MEDLINE, AgeLine and Scopus (to September 2019) was updated, alongside other sources. Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias in duplicate (using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tool, or the Joanna Briggs Institute's qualitative tool). RESULTS: = 119). Hospital-based randomised controlled trial data were too imprecise; however, very low-quality evidence indicated that novel/sports flooring reduced injurious falls from three per 1000 patients per day on vinyl with concrete subfloors to two per 1000 patients per day (rate ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.84; two studies), without increasing falls rates (two studies). One care home-based randomised controlled trial found that a novel underlay produces similar injurious falls rates (high-quality evidence) and falls rates (moderate-quality evidence) to those of a plywood underlay with vinyl overlays and concrete subfloors. Very low-quality data demonstrated that, compared with rigid floors, novel/sports flooring reduced the number of falls resulting in injury in care homes (26.4% vs. 33.0%; risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.91; three studies) and hospitals (27.1% vs. 42.4%; risk ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.93; two studies). Fracture and head injury outcomes were imprecise; however, hip fractures reduced from 30 per 1000 falls on concrete to 18 per 1000 falls on wooden subfloors in care homes (odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.78; one study; very low-quality evidence). Four low-quality economic studies concluded that shock-absorbing flooring reduced costs and improved outcomes (three studies), or increased costs and improved outcomes (one study). One, more robust, study estimated that shock-absorbing flooring resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years and lower costs, if the number of falls increased on shock-absorbing floors, but that shock-absorbing flooring would be a dominant economic strategy if the number of falls remained the same. Staff found moving wheeled equipment more difficult on shock-absorbing floors, leading to workplace adaptations. Staff injuries were observed; however, very low-quality evidence suggests that these are no less frequent on rigid floors. LIMITATIONS: Evidence favouring shock-absorbing flooring is of very low quality; thus, much uncertainty remains. CONCLUSIONS: Robust evidence is lacking in hospitals and indicates that one novel floor may not be effective in care homes. Very low-quality evidence indicates that shock-absorbing floors may be beneficial; however, wider workplace implications need to be addressed. Work is required to establish a core outcome set, and future research needs to more comprehensively deal with confounding and the paucity of hospital-based studies, and better plan for workplace adaptations in the study design. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019118834. FUNDING: ; Vol. 26, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
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 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".