The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

A multidomain decision support tool to prevent falls in older people: the FinCH cluster RCT

A multidomain decision support tool to prevent falls in older people: the FinCH cluster RCT
A multidomain decision support tool to prevent falls in older people: the FinCH cluster RCT

BACKGROUND: Falls in care home residents are common, unpleasant, costly and difficult to prevent.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Guide to Action for falls prevention in Care Homes (GtACH) programme.

DESIGN: A multicentre, cluster, parallel, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation. Care homes were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to the GtACH programme or usual care using a secure web-based randomisation service. Research assistants, participating residents and staff informants were blind to allocation at recruitment; research assistants were blind to allocation at follow-up. NHS Digital data were extracted blindly.

SETTING: Older people's care homes from 10 UK sites.

PARTICIPANTS: Older care home residents.

INTERVENTION: The GtACH programme, which includes care home staff training, systematic use of a multidomain decision support tool and implementation of falls prevention actions, compared to usual falls prevention care.

OUTCOMES: The primary trial outcome was the rate of falls per participating resident occurring during the 90-day period between 91 and 180 days post randomisation. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis was the cost per fall averted, and the primary outcome for the cost-utility analysis was the incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year. Secondary outcomes included the rate of falls over days 0-90 and 181-360 post randomisation, activity levels, dependency and fractures. The number of falls per resident was compared between arms using a negative binomial regression model (generalised estimating equation).

RESULTS: A total of 84 care homes were randomised: 39 to the GtACH arm and 45 to the control arm. A total of 1657 residents consented and provided baseline measures (mean age 85 years, 32% men). GtACH programme training was delivered to 1051 staff (71% of eligible staff) over 146 group sessions. Primary outcome data were available for 630 GtACH participants and 712 control participants. The primary outcome result showed an unadjusted incidence rate ratio of 0.57 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.71; p < 0.01) in favour of the GtACH programme. Falls rates were lower in the GtACH arm in the period 0-90 days. There were no other differences between arms in the secondary outcomes. Care home staff valued the training, systematic strategies and specialist peer support, but the incorporation of the GtACH programme documentation into routine care home practice was limited. No adverse events were recorded. The incremental cost was £20,889.42 per Dementia Specific Quality of Life-based quality-adjusted life-year and £4543.69 per quality-adjusted life-year based on the EuroQol-5 dimensions, five-level version. The mean number of falls was 1.889 (standard deviation 3.662) in the GtACH arm and 2.747 (standard deviation 7.414) in the control arm. Therefore, 0.858 falls were averted. The base-case incremental cost per fall averted was £190.62.

CONCLUSION: The GtACH programme significantly reduced the falls rate in the study care homes without restricting residents' activity levels or increasing their dependency, and was cost-effective at current thresholds in the NHS.

FUTURE WORK: Future work should include a broad implementation programme, focusing on scale and sustainability of the GtACH programme.

LIMITATIONS: A key limitation was the fact that care home staff were not blinded, although risk was small because of the UK statutory requirement to record falls in care homes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN34353836.

FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Animals, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Finches, Humans, Male, Quality of Life, Quality-Adjusted Life Years
1366-5278
1-136
Logan, Philippa A
c982c4fe-dff1-413f-b0ba-b3de40890c4c
Horne, Jane C
5ce42dd1-d9ab-41e5-9b77-ad14db635667
Allen, Frances
31381c5b-5fff-4fb0-ba45-b838d410074f
Armstrong, Sarah J
6ffe7027-43b4-412f-9768-5c3bf20a24e3
Clark, Allan B
a0642695-ec8d-4858-b5c3-c15da7c90398
Conroy, Simon
1a33aa87-25a8-4083-8418-b7d73eb99110
Darby, Janet
58b6d827-a0d8-408c-9b94-3ff69bcbb395
Fox, Chris
06b59c5d-a369-4443-b5ae-d9a06f622d9f
Gladman, John Rf
89788999-01d4-4bd1-adb0-d96b68f2f270
Godfrey, Maureen
a099740e-4921-413b-98ee-4a560f8dc5dc
Gordon, Adam L
97e8cb3d-7bcf-4caf-8af2-3ee60243168c
Irvine, Lisa
3180e023-ae18-41fb-980b-e299973e5e77
Leighton, Paul
ab276b64-0002-46cb-a729-88052d462c72
McCartney, Karen
dad4521e-199e-46d2-8c54-6d612c04d222
Mountain, Gail
2ab909db-586e-4df0-b1c4-2abbb5fe02e4
Robertson, Kate
3a838e5e-73fc-4f22-b413-8c7c98d10d9f
Robinson, Katie
32d0fec7-3571-451a-99a8-0ea6fe9ccad4
Sach, Tracey H
5c09256f-ebed-4d14-853a-181f6c92d6f2
Stirling, Susan
b4e8f69c-04e7-4aaf-b86d-863a0971a9fa
Wilson, Edward Cf
2b156c6b-656c-4dd6-bd38-4b9766add34f
Sims, Erika J
5094f024-98f5-4bb0-94b0-f46daa198809
Logan, Philippa A
c982c4fe-dff1-413f-b0ba-b3de40890c4c
Horne, Jane C
5ce42dd1-d9ab-41e5-9b77-ad14db635667
Allen, Frances
31381c5b-5fff-4fb0-ba45-b838d410074f
Armstrong, Sarah J
6ffe7027-43b4-412f-9768-5c3bf20a24e3
Clark, Allan B
a0642695-ec8d-4858-b5c3-c15da7c90398
Conroy, Simon
1a33aa87-25a8-4083-8418-b7d73eb99110
Darby, Janet
58b6d827-a0d8-408c-9b94-3ff69bcbb395
Fox, Chris
06b59c5d-a369-4443-b5ae-d9a06f622d9f
Gladman, John Rf
89788999-01d4-4bd1-adb0-d96b68f2f270
Godfrey, Maureen
a099740e-4921-413b-98ee-4a560f8dc5dc
Gordon, Adam L
97e8cb3d-7bcf-4caf-8af2-3ee60243168c
Irvine, Lisa
3180e023-ae18-41fb-980b-e299973e5e77
Leighton, Paul
ab276b64-0002-46cb-a729-88052d462c72
McCartney, Karen
dad4521e-199e-46d2-8c54-6d612c04d222
Mountain, Gail
2ab909db-586e-4df0-b1c4-2abbb5fe02e4
Robertson, Kate
3a838e5e-73fc-4f22-b413-8c7c98d10d9f
Robinson, Katie
32d0fec7-3571-451a-99a8-0ea6fe9ccad4
Sach, Tracey H
5c09256f-ebed-4d14-853a-181f6c92d6f2
Stirling, Susan
b4e8f69c-04e7-4aaf-b86d-863a0971a9fa
Wilson, Edward Cf
2b156c6b-656c-4dd6-bd38-4b9766add34f
Sims, Erika J
5094f024-98f5-4bb0-94b0-f46daa198809

Logan, Philippa A, Horne, Jane C, Allen, Frances, Armstrong, Sarah J, Clark, Allan B, Conroy, Simon, Darby, Janet, Fox, Chris, Gladman, John Rf, Godfrey, Maureen, Gordon, Adam L, Irvine, Lisa, Leighton, Paul, McCartney, Karen, Mountain, Gail, Robertson, Kate, Robinson, Katie, Sach, Tracey H, Stirling, Susan, Wilson, Edward Cf and Sims, Erika J (2022) A multidomain decision support tool to prevent falls in older people: the FinCH cluster RCT. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 26 (9), 1-136. (doi:10.3310/CWIB0236).

Record type: Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Falls in care home residents are common, unpleasant, costly and difficult to prevent.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Guide to Action for falls prevention in Care Homes (GtACH) programme.

DESIGN: A multicentre, cluster, parallel, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation. Care homes were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to the GtACH programme or usual care using a secure web-based randomisation service. Research assistants, participating residents and staff informants were blind to allocation at recruitment; research assistants were blind to allocation at follow-up. NHS Digital data were extracted blindly.

SETTING: Older people's care homes from 10 UK sites.

PARTICIPANTS: Older care home residents.

INTERVENTION: The GtACH programme, which includes care home staff training, systematic use of a multidomain decision support tool and implementation of falls prevention actions, compared to usual falls prevention care.

OUTCOMES: The primary trial outcome was the rate of falls per participating resident occurring during the 90-day period between 91 and 180 days post randomisation. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis was the cost per fall averted, and the primary outcome for the cost-utility analysis was the incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year. Secondary outcomes included the rate of falls over days 0-90 and 181-360 post randomisation, activity levels, dependency and fractures. The number of falls per resident was compared between arms using a negative binomial regression model (generalised estimating equation).

RESULTS: A total of 84 care homes were randomised: 39 to the GtACH arm and 45 to the control arm. A total of 1657 residents consented and provided baseline measures (mean age 85 years, 32% men). GtACH programme training was delivered to 1051 staff (71% of eligible staff) over 146 group sessions. Primary outcome data were available for 630 GtACH participants and 712 control participants. The primary outcome result showed an unadjusted incidence rate ratio of 0.57 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.71; p < 0.01) in favour of the GtACH programme. Falls rates were lower in the GtACH arm in the period 0-90 days. There were no other differences between arms in the secondary outcomes. Care home staff valued the training, systematic strategies and specialist peer support, but the incorporation of the GtACH programme documentation into routine care home practice was limited. No adverse events were recorded. The incremental cost was £20,889.42 per Dementia Specific Quality of Life-based quality-adjusted life-year and £4543.69 per quality-adjusted life-year based on the EuroQol-5 dimensions, five-level version. The mean number of falls was 1.889 (standard deviation 3.662) in the GtACH arm and 2.747 (standard deviation 7.414) in the control arm. Therefore, 0.858 falls were averted. The base-case incremental cost per fall averted was £190.62.

CONCLUSION: The GtACH programme significantly reduced the falls rate in the study care homes without restricting residents' activity levels or increasing their dependency, and was cost-effective at current thresholds in the NHS.

FUTURE WORK: Future work should include a broad implementation programme, focusing on scale and sustainability of the GtACH programme.

LIMITATIONS: A key limitation was the fact that care home staff were not blinded, although risk was small because of the UK statutory requirement to record falls in care homes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN34353836.

FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: January 2022
Keywords: Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Animals, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Finches, Humans, Male, Quality of Life, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 480419
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/480419
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: 2eb9fcf1-dfaa-465a-9611-e6241231df52
ORCID for Tracey H Sach: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-8098-9220

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 02 Aug 2023 16:34
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:20

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Philippa A Logan
Author: Jane C Horne
Author: Frances Allen
Author: Sarah J Armstrong
Author: Allan B Clark
Author: Simon Conroy
Author: Janet Darby
Author: Chris Fox
Author: John Rf Gladman
Author: Maureen Godfrey
Author: Adam L Gordon
Author: Lisa Irvine
Author: Paul Leighton
Author: Karen McCartney
Author: Gail Mountain
Author: Kate Robertson
Author: Katie Robinson
Author: Tracey H Sach ORCID iD
Author: Susan Stirling
Author: Edward Cf Wilson
Author: Erika J Sims

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×