Measuring falls events in acute hospitals-a comparison of three reporting methods to identify missing data in the hospital reporting system

Anne-Marie Hill, Tammy Hoffmann, Keith Hill, David Oliver, Christopher Beer, Steven McPhail, Sandra Brauer, Terry P Haines

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

77 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare three different methods of falls reporting and examine the characteristics of the data missing from the hospital incident reporting system.

DESIGN: Fourteen-month prospective observational study nested within a randomized controlled trial.

SETTING: Rehabilitation, stroke, medical, surgical, and orthopedic wards in Perth and Brisbane, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS: Fallers (n=153) who were part of a larger trial (1,206 participants, mean age 75.1 + or - 11.0).

MEASUREMENTS: Three falls events reporting measures: participants' self-report of fall events, fall events reported in participants' case notes, and falls events reported through the hospital reporting systems.

RESULTS: The three reporting systems identified 245 falls events in total. Participants' case notes captured 226 (92.2%) falls events, hospital incident reporting systems captured 185 (75.5%) falls events, and participant self-report captured 147 (60.2%) falls events. Falls events were significantly less likely to be recorded in hospital reporting systems when a participant sustained a subsequent fall, (P=.01) or when the fall occurred in the morning shift (P=.01) or afternoon shift (P=.01).

CONCLUSION: Falls data missing from hospital incident report systems are not missing completely at random and therefore will introduce bias in some analyses if the factor investigated is related to whether the data is missing. Multimodal approaches to collecting falls data are preferable to relying on a single source alone.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1347-52
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Geriatrics Society
Volume58
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Risk Management
Self Report
Statistical Factor Analysis
Observational Studies
Orthopedics
Randomized Controlled Trials
Prospective Studies
Stroke Rehabilitation

Cite this

Hill, Anne-Marie ; Hoffmann, Tammy ; Hill, Keith ; Oliver, David ; Beer, Christopher ; McPhail, Steven ; Brauer, Sandra ; Haines, Terry P. / Measuring falls events in acute hospitals-a comparison of three reporting methods to identify missing data in the hospital reporting system. In: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2010 ; Vol. 58, No. 7. pp. 1347-52.
@article{46d2189e820e465c9e033c84a1882bb7,
title = "Measuring falls events in acute hospitals-a comparison of three reporting methods to identify missing data in the hospital reporting system",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: To compare three different methods of falls reporting and examine the characteristics of the data missing from the hospital incident reporting system.DESIGN: Fourteen-month prospective observational study nested within a randomized controlled trial.SETTING: Rehabilitation, stroke, medical, surgical, and orthopedic wards in Perth and Brisbane, Australia.PARTICIPANTS: Fallers (n=153) who were part of a larger trial (1,206 participants, mean age 75.1 + or - 11.0).MEASUREMENTS: Three falls events reporting measures: participants' self-report of fall events, fall events reported in participants' case notes, and falls events reported through the hospital reporting systems.RESULTS: The three reporting systems identified 245 falls events in total. Participants' case notes captured 226 (92.2{\%}) falls events, hospital incident reporting systems captured 185 (75.5{\%}) falls events, and participant self-report captured 147 (60.2{\%}) falls events. Falls events were significantly less likely to be recorded in hospital reporting systems when a participant sustained a subsequent fall, (P=.01) or when the fall occurred in the morning shift (P=.01) or afternoon shift (P=.01).CONCLUSION: Falls data missing from hospital incident report systems are not missing completely at random and therefore will introduce bias in some analyses if the factor investigated is related to whether the data is missing. Multimodal approaches to collecting falls data are preferable to relying on a single source alone.",
author = "Anne-Marie Hill and Tammy Hoffmann and Keith Hill and David Oliver and Christopher Beer and Steven McPhail and Sandra Brauer and Haines, {Terry P}",
year = "2010",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02856.x",
language = "English",
volume = "58",
pages = "1347--52",
journal = "Journal of the American Geriatrics Society",
issn = "0002-8614",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "7",

}

Measuring falls events in acute hospitals-a comparison of three reporting methods to identify missing data in the hospital reporting system. / Hill, Anne-Marie; Hoffmann, Tammy; Hill, Keith; Oliver, David; Beer, Christopher; McPhail, Steven; Brauer, Sandra; Haines, Terry P.

In: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Vol. 58, No. 7, 07.2010, p. 1347-52.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measuring falls events in acute hospitals-a comparison of three reporting methods to identify missing data in the hospital reporting system

AU - Hill, Anne-Marie

AU - Hoffmann, Tammy

AU - Hill, Keith

AU - Oliver, David

AU - Beer, Christopher

AU - McPhail, Steven

AU - Brauer, Sandra

AU - Haines, Terry P

PY - 2010/7

Y1 - 2010/7

N2 - OBJECTIVES: To compare three different methods of falls reporting and examine the characteristics of the data missing from the hospital incident reporting system.DESIGN: Fourteen-month prospective observational study nested within a randomized controlled trial.SETTING: Rehabilitation, stroke, medical, surgical, and orthopedic wards in Perth and Brisbane, Australia.PARTICIPANTS: Fallers (n=153) who were part of a larger trial (1,206 participants, mean age 75.1 + or - 11.0).MEASUREMENTS: Three falls events reporting measures: participants' self-report of fall events, fall events reported in participants' case notes, and falls events reported through the hospital reporting systems.RESULTS: The three reporting systems identified 245 falls events in total. Participants' case notes captured 226 (92.2%) falls events, hospital incident reporting systems captured 185 (75.5%) falls events, and participant self-report captured 147 (60.2%) falls events. Falls events were significantly less likely to be recorded in hospital reporting systems when a participant sustained a subsequent fall, (P=.01) or when the fall occurred in the morning shift (P=.01) or afternoon shift (P=.01).CONCLUSION: Falls data missing from hospital incident report systems are not missing completely at random and therefore will introduce bias in some analyses if the factor investigated is related to whether the data is missing. Multimodal approaches to collecting falls data are preferable to relying on a single source alone.

AB - OBJECTIVES: To compare three different methods of falls reporting and examine the characteristics of the data missing from the hospital incident reporting system.DESIGN: Fourteen-month prospective observational study nested within a randomized controlled trial.SETTING: Rehabilitation, stroke, medical, surgical, and orthopedic wards in Perth and Brisbane, Australia.PARTICIPANTS: Fallers (n=153) who were part of a larger trial (1,206 participants, mean age 75.1 + or - 11.0).MEASUREMENTS: Three falls events reporting measures: participants' self-report of fall events, fall events reported in participants' case notes, and falls events reported through the hospital reporting systems.RESULTS: The three reporting systems identified 245 falls events in total. Participants' case notes captured 226 (92.2%) falls events, hospital incident reporting systems captured 185 (75.5%) falls events, and participant self-report captured 147 (60.2%) falls events. Falls events were significantly less likely to be recorded in hospital reporting systems when a participant sustained a subsequent fall, (P=.01) or when the fall occurred in the morning shift (P=.01) or afternoon shift (P=.01).CONCLUSION: Falls data missing from hospital incident report systems are not missing completely at random and therefore will introduce bias in some analyses if the factor investigated is related to whether the data is missing. Multimodal approaches to collecting falls data are preferable to relying on a single source alone.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02856.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02856.x

M3 - Article

VL - 58

SP - 1347

EP - 1352

JO - Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

JF - Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

SN - 0002-8614

IS - 7

ER -