Table 1.
Hospital contextual factors and fall‐rate outcomes among 16 hospitals by three coordination‐effectiveness levelsa
| Contextual factors and fall‐rate outcomes | Aggregate (n = 16) | Lowa (n = 5) | Moderatea (n = 6) | Higha (n = 5) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline period (2012) | |||||
| Licensed beds, mean (SD or range) | 26 (6) | 24 (18‐25) | 24 (18‐25) | 29 (25‐47) | NA |
| 2010 county population, mean (SD)b | 12 087 (7792) | 12 722 (6495) | 10 693 (7145) | 13 124 (10 814) | 0.82‡ |
| 2010 proportion of county population 65+ years of age, mean (SD)b | 0.19 (0.04) | 0.20 (0.03) | 0.18 (0.04) | 0.18 (0.04) | 0.64‡ |
| Use Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality fall definition, No. (%) | 3 (19%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (17%) | 2 (40%) | 0.46§ |
| Integrate fall‐risk‐reduction evidence from multiple disciplines, No. (%) | 7 (44%) | 1 (20%) | 4 (67%) | 2 (40%) | 0.39§ |
| Interprofessional team accountable for fall‐risk‐reduction, No. (%) | 1 (6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (17%) | 0 (0%) | 1.0§ |
| Total patient days, mean (SD) | 2972 (1893) | 3100 (1556) | 2352 (1280) | 3589 (2809) | 0.85‡ |
| Total fall rate, mean (SD) | 5.1 (1.6)** | 5.6 (0.8) | 4.8 (1.5) | 4.9 (2.3) | 0.70‡ |
| Injurious fall rate, mean (SD) | 1.7 (1.0)** | 2.4 (0.9) | 1.0 (0.6) | 1.8 (1.1) | 0.043‡ |
| Unassisted fall rate, mean (SD) | 4.0 (1.8)** | 4.5 (0.8) | 2.7 (1.5) | 4.4 (2.3) | 0.32‡ |
| Duration of study (August 2012‐July 2014) | |||||
| Number of 31 study activities in which hospital participated, mean (SD) | 21 (6) | 19 (7) | 20 (5) | 24 (7) | 0.24‡ |
| Postfall huddle rate, mean (SD) | 0.67 (0.18) | 0.64 (0.12) | 0.65 (0.22) | 0.73 (0.21) | 0.43‡ |
| Repeat fall rate, mean (SD) | 1.12 (0.13) | 1.13 (0.08) | 1.11 (0.17) | 1.13 (0.15) | 0.67‡ |
| End‐of‐study period (January‐July 2014) | |||||
| Fall‐risk‐reduction coordination‐effectiveness score, mean (SD)a | 54.3 (8.5) | 44.8 (3.4) | 54.0 (2.6) | 64.0 (4.3) | NA |
| Total patient days, mean (SD) | 1551 (992) | 1507 (7987) | 1257 (594) | 1947 (1512) | 0.77‡ |
| Total fall rate, mean (SD) | 4.5 (1.9)** | 5.8 (2.4) | 4.7 (1.4) | 3.1 (0.6) | 0.098‡ |
| Injurious fall rate, mean (SD) | 2.0 (2.3)** | 3.4 (3.5) | 1.6 (1.4) | 1.0 (1.0) | 0.22‡ |
| Unassisted fall rate, mean (SD) | 3.7 (2.0)** | 5.1 (2.5) | 3.6 (1.7) | 2.4 (0.8) | 0.033‡ |
These levels were based on the distribution of the fall‐risk‐reduction coordination‐effectiveness score (low = 40‐49, moderate = 51‐58, and high = 59‐69), which was the coordinating team's rating of their effectiveness implementing 21 processes (0 = not performed to 4 = very effective) using the gap analysis (Appendix S2) at study end.
Reference.74
Statistical significance calculated using: ‡Kruskal‐Wallis exact test for differences between levels of coordination. §Pearson chi‐square exact test for differences between levels of coordination. **Paired samples t test (no statistically significant differences between baseline and end‐of‐study period).