67 Implementation strategies of fall prevention interventions in hospitals: A systematic review 3 Author, Year Design, Duration in months (Before, Implementation, After) Setting, Ward details, Single or Multi Center Number of Patients (N), LOS, Age, Female patients (%) Number of FPI (Fall prevention Approach) Fall rate before versus after (falls/1000 patient days) Barrier Assessment, Theory, model or framework, if yes which Number of strategies used (from how many ERIC Categories) Healey, 2014 Controlled Before-After, 12 (6, NA , 6) General, 16 inpatient care settings in the south of England. Nine of the original FallSafe units located in eight different hospitals met criteria for participation in the extended evaluation, NA, Multi Center NA 6 (Multifactorial) Control: 8.17 vs 7.33 Intervention: 10.9 vs 7.1* No, No, 9 (6) Hogan Quigley, 2022 Uncontrolled Before-After, 6 (3, NA , 3) General, The initial plan was to target a specific unit for CVM and rollout over time; COVID-19 precipitated the rapid release of CVM to the entire hospital, 244bed, Single Center Before: 53, After 40, NA ,NA , Before: 25 (47%) After: 22 (55%) 2 (Single)† 3.93 vs 3.37§ No, No, 6 (3) Koh, 2009 Controlled Before-After, 15 (12, NA , 12) General, Two Acute care hospitals in Singapore, NA, Multi Center NA 6 (Multiple) Control: 0.6 vs 0.6 Intervention: 1.4 vs 1.1 Yes, No, 9 (5) Krauss, 2008 Controlled Before-After, 18 (9, NA , 9) Teaching/university/ Academic, BarnesJewish Hospital, a 1300-bed urban tertiary-care academic hospital, 1300-bed, Single Center NA 9 (Multiple) Control: 7.37 vs 6.85 Intervention: 6.64 vs 5.09 No, No, 5 (4)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw