| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
RCT |
| Participants |
Setting: community or low care residential care (hostel accommodation), Adelaide, Australia
N = 140
Sample: patients presenting with a fall to A&E (71% women)
Age (years): mean 77.8 (SD 7.0)
Inclusion criteria: aged ≥ 65; fall‐related attendance at A&E; community‐dwelling or in low care residential care (hostel accommodation)
Exclusion criteria: resident in nursing home; presenting fall related to a stroke, seizure, cardiac or respiratory arrest, major infection, haemorrhage, motor vehicle accident, or being knocked to the ground by another person; MMSE < 25; no resident carer; not English speaking; living out of catchment area; terminal illness |
| Interventions |
1. Home visit and questionnaire. "Fall risk profile" developed and participant given written care plan itemising elements of intervention. Letter to GP informing him of participant's fall, inviting them to review participant, highlighting identified risk factors, suggesting possible strategies (evidence based). GP also given 1‐page evidence summary
2. Home visit. No intervention. Standard medical care from GP |
| Outcomes |
1. Number of people falling
Primary outcome was uptake of prevention strategies, rather than falls |
| Duration of the study |
6 months |
| Notes |
Potential strategies: review of medication use especially psychotropic drugs, home assessment |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Randomisation and allocation schedules created by a researcher external to the trial |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Randomised by a researcher external to the trial using numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Participants and personnel implementing the intervention not blind to allocated group, but impact of non‐blinding unclear |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
Falls and fallers |
Low risk |
Falls reported by participants who were aware of their group allocation. Outcome assessors blinded to assignment. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Fallers |
High risk |
SeeAppendix 3 for method of assessment |
| Risk of bias in recall of falls |
Low risk |
Falls ascertained by falls diary and phone calls monthly to encourage use of the diary |
