Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2025

Design and Analysis for Fall Detection System Simplification
Published on: April 6, 2020
Comparing risk-adjusted inpatient fall rates internationally: validation of a risk-adjustment model using multicentre
Niklaus S Bernet1, Irma H J Everink2, Sabine Hahn3
1School of Health Professions, Applied Research & Development in Nursing, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Murtenstrasse 10, Bern, 3008, Switzerland. niklausstefan.bernet@bfh.ch.
Background:
Inpatient falls in hospitals are an acknowledged indicator of quality of care. International comparisons could highlight quality improvement potential and enable cross-national learning. Key to fair cross-national comparison is the availability of a risk adjustment model validated in an international context. This study aimed to 1) ascertain that the variables of the inpatient fall risk adjustment model do not interact with country and thus can be used for risk adjustment, 2) compare the risk of falling in hospitals between Switzerland and Austria after risk adjustment.
Methods:
The data on inpatient falls from Swiss and Austrian acute care hospitals were collected on a single measurement day in 2017, 2018 and 2019 as part of an international multicentre cross-sectional study. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to screen for interaction effects between the patient-related fall risk factors and the countries. The risks of falling in hospital in Switzerland and in Austria were compared after applying the risk-adjustment model.
Results:
Data from 176 hospitals and 43,984 patients revealed an inpatient fall rate of 3.4% in Switzerland and 3.9% in Austria. Two of 15 patient-related fall risk variables showed an interaction effect with country: Patients who had fallen in the last 12 months (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.01, p = 0.009) or had taken sedatives/psychotropic medication (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.05-1.87, p = 0.022) had higher odds of falling in Austrian hospitals. Significantly higher odds of falling were observed in Austrian (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.13-1.68, p = 0.002) compared to Swiss hospitals after applying the risk-adjustment model.
Conclusions:
Almost all patient-related fall risk factors in the model are suitable for a risk-adjusted cross-country comparison, as they do not interact with the countries. Further model validation with additional countries is warranted, particularly to assess the interaction of risk factors "fall in the last 12 months" and "sedatives/psychotropic medication intake" with country variable. The study underscores the crucial role of an appropriate risk-adjustment model in ensuring fair international comparisons of inpatient falls, as the risk-adjusted, as opposed to the non-risk-adjusted country comparison, indicated significantly higher odds of falling in Austrian compared to Swiss hospitals.
More Related Videos
05:26Author Spotlight: Innovations in iTUG Test for Enhanced Risk Assessment and Cognitive Insights
Published on: October 25, 2024
04:13Using a Real-Time Locating System to Measure Walking Activity Associated with Wandering Behaviors Among Institutionalized Older Adults
Published on: February 8, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Healthcare Associated Infections II: Preventive Measures
The best practices for preventing healthcare-associated infections include hand hygiene, patient risk...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Actuarial Approach
Consider the example of a high-risk surgical procedure with significant early-stage mortality. A two-year clinical study is conducted,...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Hazard Rate
Interpreting Run Charts