Cost–utility analysis of a shock-absorbing floor intervention to prevent injuries from falls in hospital wards for older people

Abstract

the shock-absorbing flooring intervention has the potential to be cost-effective but further research is required on whether the intervention flooring results in a higher faller rate than standard flooring.

Development of an implementation plan for the 6-PACK falls prevention programme as part of a randomised controlled trial: protocol for a series of preimplementation studies

“…Inhospital falls remain the most commonly reported safety incident in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals10 with more than 240 000 falls each year in England and Wales 11. Additional hospital stay costs are estimated to range between £3332 and £27 468 per fall, depending on the injury 12. This is consistent with international studies which report rates of major inhospital fall injuries have increased over the last decade in Denmark13 and that rates of injurious falls remain unchanged in the USA 14.…”

Feasibility of Compliant Flooring in Long-Term Care: Results from a Stakeholder Symposium

“…Attendees indicated they would like additional cost-benefit and/or cost-effectiveness analyses performed to help determine whether compliant flooring should be installed in LTC. Attendees suggested that future economic analyses should include potential cost savings resulting from prevention of other injuries in addition to hip fractures (e.g., head injuries, wrist fractures), since most cost analyses have been performed by considering only hip fractures (Lange, 2012 ; Latimer et al, 2013 ; Njogu & Brown, 2008 ; Ryen & Svensson, 2015 ; Zacker & Shea, 1998 ). Other ideas presented included the following: (1) performing cost assessments for both direct and indirect costs of injurious falls, (2) determining the financial life cycle of the product, and (3) determining the cost-effectiveness of compliant flooring in low-income environments when compared to standard flooring.…”

“…When considering the drawbacks, financial considerations were ranked by attendees as the number one disadvantage. It has been previously documented that compliant flooring costs more than standard flooring (Laing & Robinovitch, 2009 ; Lange, 2012 ; Latimer et al, 2013 ; Njogu & Brown, 2008 ; Ryen & Svensson, 2015 ; Zacker & Shea, 1998 ). However, there was discussion at the symposium about the complexities of providing a business case for compliant flooring in Canada: the potential benefits of compliant flooring are realized as health care savings by the government, yet currently the implementation decision and expense is left to individual LTC sites.…”

“…Compared to hip protectors, exercise, and pharmaceuticals, compliant flooring is a newer intervention directed at fall injury prevention, and it has not yet been broadly implemented in LTC or other health care settings. Nevertheless, there is a considerable body of scientific evidence about compliant flooring, including studies on biomechanical efficacy (Laing & Robinovitch, 2009 ; Laing, Tootoonchi, Hulme, & Robinovitch, 2006 ; Wright & Laing, 2011 ), clinical effectiveness (Drahota et al, 2013 ; Gustavsson, Bonander, Andersson, & Nilson, 2015 ; Healey, 1994 ; Simpson et al, 2004 ), cost effectiveness (Latimer, Dixon, Drahota, & Severs, 2013 ; Zacker & Shea, 1998 ), and workplace safety (Lachance, Korall et al, 2016; Marras, Knapik, & Ferguson, 2009 ; Wynn, Riley, & Harris-Roberts, 2011 ). To facilitate the uptake and application of this evidence about compliant flooring in LTC settings, the knowledge-to-action framework (Graham et al, 2006 ; Straus, Tetroe, & Graham, 2009 ) underscores the importance of identifying relevant stakeholders, assessing the barriers and facilitators faced by stakeholders to using the relevant evidence, and tailoring research questions to address problems identified by stakeholders.…”

Protocol for the SAFEST review: the Shock-Absorbing Flooring Effectiveness SysTematic review including older adults and staff in hospitals and care homes

“…To avoid duplication of effort, we will build on the search already conducted in a scoping review17 which completed its search in May 2016. The clinical12 16 18–26 38–46 and cost-effectiveness11 21 26 40 41 47–63 records identified in the scoping review will be assessed for inclusion in the current review. We will continue the search from May 2016 to present, and will not apply any language restrictions.…”