半岛健康跌倒风险评估工具(PHFRAT)在养老院中的使用和实用性:对 25 家养老院进行的混合方法研究。

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY BMC Geriatrics Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1186/s12877-024-05462-8
Crisostomo Ibarra Mercado, Isabelle Meulenbroeks, Guogui Huang, Nasir Wabe, Karla Seaman, Joanna Clive, Johanna Westbrook
{"title":"半岛健康跌倒风险评估工具(PHFRAT)在养老院中的使用和实用性:对 25 家养老院进行的混合方法研究。","authors":"Crisostomo Ibarra Mercado, Isabelle Meulenbroeks, Guogui Huang, Nasir Wabe, Karla Seaman, Joanna Clive, Johanna Westbrook","doi":"10.1186/s12877-024-05462-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Falls remain a persistent problem in residential aged care (RAC) facilities. Fall screening and assessment tools such as the Peninsula Health Falls Risk Assessment Tool (PHFRAT) are widely used to inform falls risk and guide fall prevention interventions. However, it is unclear how it is used in practice and whether clinicians believe it supports resident care. This study aimed to measure the extent of use of PHFRAT to understand clinicians' perceptions of its value and usefulness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This mixed method study involved an analysis of PHFRAT assessment from 25 RAC facilities in New South Wales, Australia, and interviews with seven RAC staff about how PHFRAT information is used in practice. In the quantitative component, descriptive statistics were applied to PHFRAT data to summarise how RAC staff use the PHFRAT including the completeness and content of the three parts. In the qualitative component, thematic analysis techniques were applied to interview data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample included 215 RAC residents with 703 PHFRATs, of which 617 documented fall prevention interventions. Among these 617 PHFRATs, 593 (96.1%) included strategies related to staff assistance and 283 (45.9%) recorded strategies related to device provision. While nearly all residents (96.74%) received at least one PHFRAT assessment over the study period, many PHFRAT assessments were incomplete (part 1: 11.5% of information missing; part 2: 10.8%; part 3: 17.1%). There were few variations in fall interventions prescribed to individual residents by their fall risk level. Interviews with RAC staff indicated that PHFRAT assessments are the responsibility of registered nurses with limited input from other staff or residents. While the structured process was viewed positively in guiding risk assessment and intervention assessment, a lack of input from others prevented strategies from being tailored to residents' specific needs and preferences. A shortage of resources, lack of communication, and limited staff education were identified as the main barriers to PHFRAT guideline implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The PHFRAT provides a useful structure for clinicians to assess falls risk factors and plan falls prevention strategies. In the future, increased multidisciplinary input into fall prevention strategy development may improve the comprehensiveness of fall prevention plans.</p>","PeriodicalId":9056,"journal":{"name":"BMC Geriatrics","volume":"24 1","pages":"869"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11515602/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The use and usefulness of the Peninsula Health Falls Risk Assessment Tool (PHFRAT) process in residential aged care: a mixed methods study across 25 aged care facilities.\",\"authors\":\"Crisostomo Ibarra Mercado, Isabelle Meulenbroeks, Guogui Huang, Nasir Wabe, Karla Seaman, Joanna Clive, Johanna Westbrook\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12877-024-05462-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Falls remain a persistent problem in residential aged care (RAC) facilities. Fall screening and assessment tools such as the Peninsula Health Falls Risk Assessment Tool (PHFRAT) are widely used to inform falls risk and guide fall prevention interventions. However, it is unclear how it is used in practice and whether clinicians believe it supports resident care. This study aimed to measure the extent of use of PHFRAT to understand clinicians' perceptions of its value and usefulness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This mixed method study involved an analysis of PHFRAT assessment from 25 RAC facilities in New South Wales, Australia, and interviews with seven RAC staff about how PHFRAT information is used in practice. In the quantitative component, descriptive statistics were applied to PHFRAT data to summarise how RAC staff use the PHFRAT including the completeness and content of the three parts. In the qualitative component, thematic analysis techniques were applied to interview data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample included 215 RAC residents with 703 PHFRATs, of which 617 documented fall prevention interventions. Among these 617 PHFRATs, 593 (96.1%) included strategies related to staff assistance and 283 (45.9%) recorded strategies related to device provision. While nearly all residents (96.74%) received at least one PHFRAT assessment over the study period, many PHFRAT assessments were incomplete (part 1: 11.5% of information missing; part 2: 10.8%; part 3: 17.1%). There were few variations in fall interventions prescribed to individual residents by their fall risk level. Interviews with RAC staff indicated that PHFRAT assessments are the responsibility of registered nurses with limited input from other staff or residents. While the structured process was viewed positively in guiding risk assessment and intervention assessment, a lack of input from others prevented strategies from being tailored to residents' specific needs and preferences. A shortage of resources, lack of communication, and limited staff education were identified as the main barriers to PHFRAT guideline implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The PHFRAT provides a useful structure for clinicians to assess falls risk factors and plan falls prevention strategies. In the future, increased multidisciplinary input into fall prevention strategy development may improve the comprehensiveness of fall prevention plans.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9056,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Geriatrics\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"869\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11515602/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Geriatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05462-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Geriatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05462-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:跌倒仍然是养老院(RAC)设施中一个长期存在的问题。半岛健康跌倒风险评估工具(Peninsula Health Falls Risk Assessment Tool,PHFRAT)等跌倒筛查和评估工具被广泛用于了解跌倒风险和指导跌倒预防干预措施。然而,目前还不清楚该工具在实践中是如何使用的,也不清楚临床医生是否认为该工具有助于居民护理。本研究旨在测量 PHFRAT 的使用范围,以了解临床医生对其价值和实用性的看法:这项混合方法研究分析了澳大利亚新南威尔士州 25 家康复中心的 PHFRAT 评估结果,并就 PHFRAT 信息在实践中的使用情况采访了 7 名康复中心工作人员。在定量研究中,对 PHFRAT 数据进行了描述性统计,以总结 RAC 员工如何使用 PHFRAT,包括三个部分的完整性和内容。在定性部分,对访谈数据采用了主题分析技术:样本包括 215 名康复中心居民和 703 份 PHFRAT,其中 617 份记录了预防跌倒干预措施。在这 617 份 PHFRAT 中,有 593 份(96.1%)包含了与员工协助相关的策略,283 份(45.9%)记录了与设备提供相关的策略。在研究期间,几乎所有住院患者(96.74%)都接受了至少一次 PHFRAT 评估,但许多 PHFRAT 评估并不完整(第一部分:11.5% 的信息缺失;第二部分:10.8%;第三部分:17.1%)。根据每位住院患者的跌倒风险等级,为其制定的跌倒干预措施几乎没有差异。与康复咨询中心员工的访谈显示,PHFRAT 评估是注册护士的职责,其他员工或住户的意见有限。虽然结构化程序在指导风险评估和干预评估方面被认为是积极的,但由于缺乏其他人员的参与,因此无法根据住户的具体需求和偏好制定相应的策略。资源短缺、缺乏沟通和员工教育有限被认为是 PHFRAT 指南实施的主要障碍:PHFRAT为临床医生评估跌倒风险因素和规划跌倒预防策略提供了一个有用的结构。未来,在制定跌倒预防策略时增加多学科投入可能会提高跌倒预防计划的全面性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The use and usefulness of the Peninsula Health Falls Risk Assessment Tool (PHFRAT) process in residential aged care: a mixed methods study across 25 aged care facilities.

Background: Falls remain a persistent problem in residential aged care (RAC) facilities. Fall screening and assessment tools such as the Peninsula Health Falls Risk Assessment Tool (PHFRAT) are widely used to inform falls risk and guide fall prevention interventions. However, it is unclear how it is used in practice and whether clinicians believe it supports resident care. This study aimed to measure the extent of use of PHFRAT to understand clinicians' perceptions of its value and usefulness.

Methods: This mixed method study involved an analysis of PHFRAT assessment from 25 RAC facilities in New South Wales, Australia, and interviews with seven RAC staff about how PHFRAT information is used in practice. In the quantitative component, descriptive statistics were applied to PHFRAT data to summarise how RAC staff use the PHFRAT including the completeness and content of the three parts. In the qualitative component, thematic analysis techniques were applied to interview data.

Results: The sample included 215 RAC residents with 703 PHFRATs, of which 617 documented fall prevention interventions. Among these 617 PHFRATs, 593 (96.1%) included strategies related to staff assistance and 283 (45.9%) recorded strategies related to device provision. While nearly all residents (96.74%) received at least one PHFRAT assessment over the study period, many PHFRAT assessments were incomplete (part 1: 11.5% of information missing; part 2: 10.8%; part 3: 17.1%). There were few variations in fall interventions prescribed to individual residents by their fall risk level. Interviews with RAC staff indicated that PHFRAT assessments are the responsibility of registered nurses with limited input from other staff or residents. While the structured process was viewed positively in guiding risk assessment and intervention assessment, a lack of input from others prevented strategies from being tailored to residents' specific needs and preferences. A shortage of resources, lack of communication, and limited staff education were identified as the main barriers to PHFRAT guideline implementation.

Conclusion: The PHFRAT provides a useful structure for clinicians to assess falls risk factors and plan falls prevention strategies. In the future, increased multidisciplinary input into fall prevention strategy development may improve the comprehensiveness of fall prevention plans.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Geriatrics
BMC Geriatrics GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.30%
发文量
873
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Geriatrics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of the health and healthcare of older people, including the effects of healthcare systems and policies. The journal also welcomes research focused on the aging process, including cellular, genetic, and physiological processes and cognitive modifications.
期刊最新文献
Impact of dementia on post-hip fracture walking ability: a stratified analysis based on pre-fracture mobility in Swedish cohorts of older adults. Quality of life and associated characteristics in long-term care residents with advanced dementia in Macao: a cross-sectional study. Home physical therapy versus telerehabilitation in improving motor function and quality of life in Parkinson's disease: a randomized controlled trial. Psychotropic use for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Association of serum creatinine-cystatin C ratio with all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality in US adults: a nationwide cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1