Comparisons of Fall Prevention Activities Using Electronic Nursing Records: A Case-Control Study
Journal of Patient Safety, ISSN: 1549-8425, Vol: 18, Issue: 3, Page: 145-151
2022
- 4Citations
- 26Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations4
- Citation Indexes4
- CrossRef4
- Captures26
- Readers26
- 26
Article Description
Objective The aim of this study was to compare the current fall prevention nursing practices with the evidence-based practices recommended in clinical practice guidelines according to the risk of falling and specific risk factors. Methods The standardized nursing statements of 12,277 patients were extracted from electronic nursing records and classified into groups according to the risk of falling and individual patients' specific risk factors. The mean frequencies of the fall prevention practices in 10 categories derived from clinical practice guidelines were compared among the groups. We additionally analyzed the differences in the mean frequencies of tailored fall prevention practices according to individual patients' specific risk factors. Results The nurses documented more fall prevention practices for patients at a high risk of falling and nonfallers than for patients at a low risk of falling and fallers. Specifically, the difference in nursing practices related to environmental modifications was largest between patients at a high risk of falling and those at a low risk of falling. There were also large differences in the nursing practices related to mental status, dizziness/vertigo, and mobility limitations between fallers and nonfallers. There was more documentation of tailored fall prevention practices related to mobility limitations for patient with mild lower limb weakness than for those with good power and balance. In contrast, patients with severe lower limb weakness had received fewer fall prevention practices related to mobility limitations. Conclusions The present findings emphasize that individual risk-specific nursing interventions in addition to universal precautions are crucial for preventing falls among patients.
Bibliographic Details
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know