Clinical Impact of an Analytic Tool for Predicting the Fall Risk in Inpatients: Controlled Interrupted Time Series

Abstract

BackgroundPatient falls are a common cause of harm in acute-care hospitals worldwide. They are a difficult, complex, and common problem requiring a great deal of nurses’ time, attention, and effort in practice. The recent rapid expansion of health care predictive analytic applications and the growing availability of electronic health record (EHR) data have resulted in the development of machine learning models that predict adverse events. However, the clinical impact of these models in terms of patient outcomes and clinicians’ responses is undetermined. ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the impact of an electronic analytic tool for predicting fall risk on patient outcomes and nurses’ responses. MethodsA controlled interrupted time series (ITS) experiment was conducted in 12 medical-surgical nursing units at a public hospital between May 2017 and April 2019. In six of the units, the patients’ fall risk was assessed using the St. Thomas’ Risk Assessment Tool in Falling Elderly Inpatients (STRATIFY) system (control units), while in the other six, a predictive model for inpatient fall risks was implemented using routinely obtained data from the hospital’s EHR system (intervention units). The primary outcome was the rate of patient falls; secondary outcomes included the rate of falls with injury and analysis of process metrics (nursing interventions that are designed to mitigate the risk of fall). ResultsDuring the study period, there were 42,476 admissions, of which 707 were for falls and 134 for fall injuries. Allowing for differences in the patients’ characteristics and baseline process metrics, the number of patients with falls differed between the control (n=382) and intervention (n=325) units. The mean fall rate increased from 1.95 to 2.11 in control units and decreased from 1.92 to 1.79 in intervention units. A separate ITS analysis revealed that the immediate reduction was 29.73% in the intervention group (z=–2.06, P=.039) and 16.58% in the control group (z=–1.28, P=.20), but there was no ongoing effect. The injury rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (0.42 vs 0.31, z=1.50, P=.134). Among the process metrics, the risk-targeted interventions increased significantly over time in the intervention group. ConclusionsThis early-stage clinical evaluation revealed that implementation of an analytic tool for predicting fall risk may to contribute to an awareness of fall risk, leading to positive changes in nurses’ interventions over time. Trial RegistrationClinical Research Information Service (CRIS), Republic of Korea KCT0005286; https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do/16984