Mechanical Falls: Are Patients Willing to Discuss Their Risk with a Health Care Provider?

Risk Factors of Readmissions in Geriatric Rehabilitation Patients: RESORT

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk factors associated with 30- and 90-day hospital readmissions in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients.

DESIGN

Observational, prospective longitudinal inception cohort.

SETTING

Tertiary hospital in Victoria, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Geriatric rehabilitation inpatients of the REStORing Health of Acutely Unwell AdulTs (RESORT) cohort evalutated by a comprehensive geriatric assessment including potential readmission risk factors (ie, demographic, social support, lifestyle, functional performance, quality of life, morbidity, length of stay in an acute ward). Of 693 inpatients, 11 died during geriatric rehabilitation. The mean age of the remaining 682 inpatients was 82.2±7.8 years, and 56.7% were women.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Thirty- and 90-day readmissions after discharge from geriatric inpatient rehabilitation.

RESULTS

The 30- and 90-day unplanned all-cause readmission rates were 11.6% and 25.2%, respectively. Risk factors for 30- and 90-day readmissions were as follows: did not receive tertiary education, lower quality of life, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) scores, and a higher number of medications used in the univariable models. Formal care was associated with increased risk for 90-day readmissions. In multivariable models, CIRS score was a significant risk factor for 30-day readmissions, whereas high fear of falling and CIRS score were significant risk factors for 90-day readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

High fear of falling and CIRS score were independent risk factors for readmission in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients. These variables should be included in hospital readmission risk prediction model developments for geriatric rehabilitation inpatients.

Is there such a thing as a mechanical fall?

OBJECTIVES

The term mechanical falls is commonly used in the emergency department (ED), yet its definition and clinical implications are not established. It may be used to attribute falls to extrinsic factors in the environment exonerating clinicians from conducting a thorough assessment of the fall's underlying intrinsic causes. We conducted this study to determine how clinicians assess "mechanical" and "nonmechanical" falls; we explored conditions, fall evaluation, and outcomes associated with these diagnoses.

METHODS

This study was a secondary analysis of a retrospective study at 1 urban ED. Data were obtained from medical records of patients aged 65 years and older who presented to the ED for a fall. We compared the associated conditions/causes, the ED fall evaluation, mortality, ED revisits, subsequent hospitalizations, and recurrent falls between the 2 terms.

RESULTS

We had a sample size of 350 patients: 218 (62.3%) with "mechanical falls" and 132 (37.7%) with nonmechanical falls. There was little difference among associated conditions between the 2 fall labels other than mechanical falls had more associated environmental causes but fewer syncope causes. However, more than a quarter of nonmechanical falls had associated environmental factors as well. Similarly, there was little difference in the fall evaluation, ED revisit rates, recurrent falls, subsequent hospitalizations, and death between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The term mechanical fall is unclear, inconsistently used, and not associated with a discrete fall evaluation and does not predict outcomes. We propose eliminating the term because it inaccurately implies that a benign etiology for an older person's fall exists.