IMPORTANCE Falls represent a leading cause of preventable injury in hospitals and a frequently reported serious adverse event. Hospitalization is associated with an increased risk for falls and serious injuries including hip fractures, subdural hematomas, or even death. Multifactorial strategies have been shown to reduce falls in acute care hospitals, but evidence for fall-related injury prevention in hospitals is lacking. OBJECTIVE To assess whether a fall-prevention tool kit that engages patients and families in the fallprevention process throughout hospitalization is associated with reduced falls and injurious falls. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis nonrandomized controlled trial using stepped wedge design was conducted between November 1, 2015, and October 31, 2018, in 14 medical units within 3 academic medical centers in Boston and New York City. All adult inpatients hospitalized in participating units were included in the analysis. INTERVENTIONS A nurse-led fall-prevention tool kit linking evidence-based preventive interventions to patient-specific fall risk factors and designed to integrate continuous patient and family engagement in the fall-prevention process. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the rate of patient falls per 1000 patient-days in targeted units during the study period. The secondary outcome was the rate of falls with injury per 1000 patient-days. RESULTS During the interrupted time series, 37 231 patients were evaluated, including 17 948 before the intervention (mean [SD] age, 60.56 [18.30] years; 9723 [54.17%] women) and 19 283 after the intervention (mean [SD] age, 60.92 [18.10] years; 10 325 [53.54%] women). There was an overall adjusted 15% reduction in falls after implementation of the fall-prevention tool kit compared with before implementation (2.92 vs 2.49 falls per 1000 patient-days [95% CI, 2.06-3.00 falls per 1000 patient-days]; adjusted rate ratio 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96; P = .01) and an adjusted 34% reduction in injurious falls (0.73 vs 0.48 injurious falls per 1000 patient-days [95% CI, 0.34-0.70 injurious falls per 1000 patient-days]; adjusted rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.88; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this nonrandomized controlled trial, implementation of a fallprevention tool kit was associated with a significant reduction in falls and related injuries. A patientcare team partnership appears to be beneficial for prevention of falls and fall-related injuries.

Background/Objectives: To assess nurses' opinions of the efficacy of using the FallTIPS (Tailoring Interventions for Patient Safety) fall prevention program. Design: Survey research.Setting: Seven adult acute-care hospitals in 2 hospital centers located in Boston and NYC.Participants: A total of 298 medical-surgical nurses on 14 randomly selected units.Intervention: Three-step FallTIPS fall prevention program that had been in use as a clinical program for a minimum of 2 years in each hospital.Measurements: Fall Prevention Efficiency Scale (FPES), range 13-52; fourfactorilly derived subscales: valued, efficiency, balances out and inefficiency; and 13 psychometrically validated individual items.Results: Nurses perceived the FallTIPS fall prevention program to be efficacious. The FPES mean score of 38.55 (SD = 5.05) and median of 39 were well above the lowest possible score of 13 and scale midpoint of 32.5. Most nurses (N = 270, 90.6%) scored above 33. There were no differences in FPES scores between nurses who had only used FallTIPS and nurses who had previously used a different fall prevention program. Conclusion:The nurses who used FallTIPS perceived that efficiencies in patient care compensated for the time spent on FallTIPS. Nurses valued the program and findings confirmed the importance of patient and family engagement with staff in the fall prevention process. Regardless of the fall prevention program used, organizations should examine staff perceptions of their fall prevention program because programs that are not perceived as being useful, efficient, and valuable will lead to nonadherence over time and then will not reduce falls and injuries. The recently developed FPES used in this study is a

Background Many hospital systems in the United States report injurious inpatient falls using the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators categories: None, Minor, Moderate, Major, and Death. The Major category is imprecise, including injuries ranging from a wrist fracture to potentially fatal subdural hematoma. The purpose of this project was to refine the Major injury classification to derive a valid and reliable categorization of the types and severities of Major inpatient fall-related injuries. Methods Based on published literature and ranking of injurious fall incident reports (n = 85) from a large Academic Medical Center, we divided the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators Major category into three subcategories: Major A—injuries that caused temporary functional impairment (eg, wrist fracture), major facial injury without internal injury (eg, nasal bone fracture), or disruption of a surgical wound; Major B—injuries that caused long-term functional impairment or had the potential risk of increased mortality (eg, multiple rib fractures); and Major C—injuries that had a well-established risk of mortality (eg, hip fracture). Based on the literature and expert opinion, our research team reached consensus on an administration manual to promote accurate classification of Major injuries into one of the three subcategories. Results The team tested and validated each of the categories which resulted in excellent interrater reliability (kappa = .96). Of the Major injuries, the distribution of Major A, B, and C was 40.3%, 16.1%, and 43.6%, respectively. Conclusions These subcategories enhance the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators categorization. Using the administration manual, trained personnel can classify injurious fall severity with excellent reliability.

Background and Significance Falls in community-dwelling older adults are common, and there is a lack of clinical decision support (CDS) to provide health care providers with effective, individualized fall prevention recommendations. Objectives The goal of this research is to identify end-user (primary care staff and patients) needs through a human-centered design process for a tool that will generate CDS to protect older adults from falls and injuries. Methods Primary care staff (primary care providers, care coordinator nurses, licensed practical nurses, and medical assistants) and community-dwelling patients aged 60 years or older associated with Brigham & Women's Hospital-affiliated primary care clinics and the University of Florida Health Archer Family Health Care primary care clinic were eligible to participate in this study. Through semi-structured and exploratory interviews with participants, our team identified end-user needs through content analysis. Results User needs for primary care staff (n = 24) and patients (n = 18) were categorized under the following themes: workload burden; systematic communication; in-person assessment of patient condition; personal support networks; motivational tools; patient understanding of fall risk; individualized resources; and evidence-based safe exercises and expert guidance. While some of these themes are specific to either primary care staff or patients, several address needs expressed by both groups of end-users. Conclusion Our findings suggest that there are many care gaps in fall prevention management in primary care and that personalized, actionable, and evidence-based CDS has the potential to address some of these gaps.

This case report applied principles from the data visualization (DV) literature and feedback from nurses to develop an effective report to display adherence with an evidence-based fall prevention program. We tested the usability of the original and revised reports using a Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (Health-ITUES) customized for this project. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The literature emphasized that the ideal display maximizes the information communicated, minimizes the cognitive efforts involved with interpretation, and selects the correct type of display (eg, bar versus line graph). Semi-structured nurse interviews emphasized the value of simplified reports and meaningful data. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) Health-ITUES score for the original report was 3.86 (0.19) and increased to 4.29 (0.11) in the revised report (Mann Whitney U Test, z = −12.25, P < 0.001). Lessons learned from this study can inform report development for clinicians in implementation science.

ObjectivesFall TIPS (Tailoring Interventions for Patient Safety) is an evidence-based fall prevention program that led to a 25% reduction in falls in hospitalized adults. Because it would be helpful to assess nurses’ perceptions of burdens imposed on them by using Fall TIPS or other fall prevention program, we conducted a study to learn benefits and burdens.MethodsA 3-phase mixed-method study was conducted at 3 hospitals in Massachusetts and 3 in New York: (1) initial qualitative, elicited and categorized nurses’ views of time spent implementing Fall TIPS; (2) second qualitative, used nurses’ quotes to develop items, research team inputs for refinement and organization, and clinical nurses’ evaluation and suggestions to develop the prototype scale; and (3) quantitative, evaluated psychometric properties.ResultsFour “time” themes emerged: (1) efficiency, (2) inefficiency, (3) balances out, and (4) valued. A 20-item prototype Fall Prevention Efficiency Scale was developed, administered to 383 clinical nurses, and reduced to 13 items. Individual items demonstrated robust stability with Pearson correlations of 0.349 to 0.550 and paired t tests of 0.155 to 1.636. Four factors explained 74.3% variance and provided empirical support for the scale’s conceptual basis. The scale achieved excellent internal consistency values (0.82–0.92) when examined with the test, validation, and paired (both test and retest) samplesConclusionsThis new scale assess nurses’ perceptions of how a fall prevention program affects their efficiency, which impacts the likelihood of use. Learning nurses’ beliefs about time wasted when implementing new programs allows hospitals to correct problems that squander time.

Background Primary care providers face challenges in recognizing and controlling hypertension in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Clinical decision support (CDS) has the potential to aid clinicians in identifying patients who could benefit from medication changes. This study designed an alert to control hypertension in CKD patients using an iterative human-centered design process. Methods In this study, we present a human-centered design process employing multiple methods for gathering user requirements and feedback on design and usability. Initially, we conducted contextual inquiry sessions to gather user requirements for the CDS. This was followed by group design sessions and one-on-one formative think-aloud sessions to validate requirements, obtain feedback on the design and layout, uncover usability issues, and validate changes. Results This study included 20 participants. The contextual inquiry produced 10 user requirements which influenced the initial alert design. The group design sessions revealed issues related to several themes, including recommendations and clinical content that did not match providers' expectations and extraneous information on the alerts that did not provide value. Findings from the individual think-aloud sessions revealed that participants disagreed with some recommended clinical actions, requested additional information, and had concerns about the placement in their workflow. Following each step, iterative changes were made to the alert content and design. Discussion This study showed that participation from users throughout the design process can lead to a better understanding of user requirements and optimal design, even within the constraints of an EHR alerting system. While raising awareness of design needs, it also revealed concerns related to workflow, understandability, and relevance. Conclusion The human-centered design framework using multiple methods for CDS development informed the creation of an alert to assist in the treatment and recognition of hypertension in patients with CKD.

IntroductionThe purpose of this study is to incorporate behavioural economic principles and user-centred design principles into a multicomponent intervention for the management of uncontrolled hypertension (HTN) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, pragmatic, controlled trial cluster-randomised at the clinician level at The Brigham and Women’s Practice -Based Research Network of 15 practices. Of 220 total clinicians, 184 were eligible to be enrolled, and the remainder were excluded (residents and clinicians who see urgent care or walk-in patients); no clinicians opted out. The intervention consists of a clinical decision support system based in behavioural economic and user-centred design principles that will: (1) synthesise existing laboratory tests, medication orders and vital sign data; (2) increase recognition of CKD, (3) increase recognition of uncontrolled HTN in CKD patients and (4) deliver evidence-based CKD and HTN management recommendations. The primary endpoint is the change in mean systolic blood pressure between baseline and 6 months compared across arms. We will use the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance framework. At the conclusion of this study, we will have: (1) validated an intervention that combines laboratory tests, medication records and clinical information collected by electronic health records to recognise uncontrolled HTN in CKD patients and recommend a course of care, (2) tested the effectiveness of said intervention and (3) collected information about the implementation of the intervention that will aid in dissemination of the intervention to other practice settings.Ethics and disseminationThe Human Subjects Institutional Review Board at Brigham and Women’s Hospital provided an expedited review and approval for this study protocol, and a Data Safety Monitoring Board will ensure the ongoing safety of the trial.Trial registration numberNCT03679247.