Discussion post!

articleforme.pdf

Home >Nursing homework help >Discussion post!

Multilevel Factors Associated With Injurious Falls in Acute Care Hospitals

Yunchuan (Lucy) Zhao, PhD, MPAff, RN; Marjorie Bott, PhD, RN; Jianghua He, PhD; Heejung Kim, PhD, RN; Shin Hye Park, PhD, RN; Nancy Dunton, PhD, RN

Using National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators data from July 2013 to June 2014, this cor- relational study examined the associations of injurious falls among all patient falls with multilevel factors in hospitals. The sample included all falls recorded in adult medical, surgical, combined medical-surgical, and step-down units (N = 2299) in participating hospitals (N = 488). Hierar- chical negative binominal regression analyses were performed. Results revealed hospital and unit organizational factors associated with inpatient injurious falls. Key words: fall risk assessment, falls, hospitals, injurious falls, nurse staffing, organizational structure

INPATIENT FALLS and injurious falls inacute care settings are prevalent and a se- rious concern for patient care. In the United States, the overall prevalence of falls range from 3 to 5 falls per 1000 patient-days, with about 1 million inpatient falls annually.1

Among inpatient falls, the incidence rates for fall-related injuries range from 6.8% to 72.1%, with 0.7% to 30% for severe injuries such as fractures, cranial trauma, or death.2 Injurious

Author Affiliations: Boise State University School of Nursing, Boise, Idaho (Dr Zhao); University of Kansas School of Nursing (Drs Bott, Park, and Dunton) and Department of Biostatistics, University of Kansas School of Medicine (Dr He), Kansas City; and College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea (Dr Kim).

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.jncqjournal.com).

Correspondence: Yunchuan (Lucy) Zhao, PhD, MPAff, RN, Boise State University School of Nursing, 1910 University Dr, Mail Stop 1840, Boise, ID 83725 ([email protected]).

Accepted for publication: January 15, 2017

Published ahead of print: March 20, 2017

DOI: 10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000253

falls have a negative impact on patients, fami- lies, and the health care system. With injurious falls, patients may suffer from loss of indepen- dence, depression, and decreased quality of life.1 Injurious falls can result in a prolonged length of stay (LOS) that further leads to in- creased direct patient care costs and health care resource use.1 When comparing patients with severe injurious falls with patients with- out falls, the LOS increases, on average, by 6 to 12 days, with an additional cost of $13 316 for the patient.3 In addition, indirect costs asso- ciated with injurious falls may include loss of income, placement in a skilled nursing facility or nursing home, and litigation expenses.1,3

In the last few decades, interventions aimed at fall prevention have been developed and implemented in hospitals.4 Several national initiatives also have underscored the impor- tance of preventing falls and their associated adverse consequences. Prevention of falls and fall-related serious injuries and death is one major goal in the Healthy People 2020.5 Be- ginning in October 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services no longer reim- burses hospitals for treatment of preventable injuries, including fall-related injuries.6 De- spite the national efforts and initiatives on

http://www.jncqjournal.com

mailto:[email protected]

Injurious Falls in Acute Care Hospitals 21

fall prevention, inpatients falls and fall-related injuries still are prevalent in hospitals. The results of a recent study show a total of 315 817 falls (3.56 falls per 1000 patient-days), with 26.1% (82,332) of the falls having re- lated injuries (0.93 injurious falls per 1000 patient-days) in less than a 2-year period in US hospitals.7

Inpatient falls are a complicated phe- nomenon that involves multilevel factors, including patient-specific factors, envi- ronmental factors, organizational factors, and patient-staff interaction factors in the hospital.1 Research shows that patients identified at risk for falls are more likely to experience injurious falls.8 Evidence of the associations between gender and injurious falls is controversial.8-11 Hospital character- istics such as hospital size and Magnet or teaching status are associated with injurious falls. Small hospitals (<300 beds) tend to have more injurious falls,11,12 whereas Magnet and teaching hospitals have fewer inpatient falls and injurious falls, respectively.11,13

Unit factors (eg, unit types and nurse staffing) also are found to be associated with injurious falls. Among medical, surgical, and medical-surgical units, medical units have the highest prevalence of falls and injurious falls.7,9,11 Based on a systematic review and a meta-analysis, the evidence on the association between inpatient falls and nurse staffing is inconclusive,14,15although some studies sug- gest that lower inpatient fall rates are associ- ated with higher nursing hours, higher regis- tered nurse (RN) hours, and a higher propor- tion of RN hours.13

Nursing care process factors also contribute to inpatient falls and associated injuries. Stud- ies show that fall risk assessment and fall protocol implementation help prevent or re- duce injurious falls.8,11 Falls without em- ployee assistance are more likely to result in injuries8,10,11 However, the use of phys- ical restraints is positively associated with an increased risk for falls, injuries, and even death.16,17

Given the controversial evidence on factors associated with injurious falls in the literature and the complicated nature of inpatient

falls and associated injuries, further study integrating multilevel factors contributing to injurious falls is required. Using a modified Donabedian’s Structure-Process-Outcome (SPO) model18,19 that included patient characteristics in the SPO model, this study examined multilevel factors associated with injurious falls in acute care hospitals (see Supplemental Digital Content, Figure 1, avail- able at: http://links.lww.com/JNCQ/A323). To date, this study is the first attempt at investigating the complex phenomenon of injurious falls at multiple levels. The research question was “What organizational structure, unit structure, nursing care process, and patient factors are associated with injurious falls in acute care hospitals?”

METHODS

Design and data source

The study is a cross-sectional, correlational design, using the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators (NDNQI) data collected be- tween July 2013 and June 2014. The nursing quality indicators such as falls and injurious falls in NDNQI are National Quality Forum– endorsed measures that have demonstrated strong reliability and validity.20,21

Only adult (≥18 years) patients who had any fall event on medical, surgical, medical- surgical, and step-down units in acute care hospitals during the study period were se- lected for this study; patient-level fall data then were aggregated to the unit level. NDNQI monthly data were aggregated into annual data at the unit level or hospital level. The final sample included 2229 units (medi- cal = 587; surgical = 412; medical-surgical = 795; and step-down = 435) in 488 hospi- tals. This study was determined to be nonhu- man subject research by the Human Subjects Committee at a Midwestern academic medical center.

Measures

Injurious falls

The annual total number of injurious falls among all inpatient falls at the unit level was

http://links.lww.com/JNCQ/A323

22 JOURNAL OF NURSING CARE QUALITY/JANUARY–MARCH 2018

the outcome variable. NDNQI defines a fall as “sudden, unintentional descent, with or with- out injury to the patient, that results in the pa- tient coming to rest on the floor, on or against some other surface (eg, a counter), on another person, or on an object (eg, a trash can).”22(p2)

Injurious falls are falls with any injuries from minor to death.22

Structure, process, and patient factor

Independent variables included structure, process, and patient factors. Structure fac- tors had 2 levels: hospital and unit. Hospi- tal characteristics were categorized into hos- pital bed size (small: <100; medium: ≥100 to <300; and large: ≥300), teaching status (teaching and nonteaching), and Magnet sta- tus (Magnet and non-Magnet). Unit structure factors included unit types (ie, medical, sur- gical, medical-surgical, and step-down) and nurse staffing factors. Nurse staffing on the unit consisted of 5 continuous variables: to- tal nursing hours per patient-day (TNHPPD), RN hours per patient-day (RNHPPD), non- RNHPPD (calculated by subtracting RNHPPD from TNHPPD), RN skill mix, and RN turnover rate.

The following process and patient factors reported by NDNQI for each inpatient fall were first coded into dichotomous variables from monthly data files and then aggregated and summed across months into annual data at the unit level that represent the propor- tions of certain characteristics among patients who fell in the units. Fall risk assessment was measured by whether a fall risk assessment was performed on the patient prior to the fall. Implementing fall prevention protocol was measured by whether a documented fall prevention protocol had been implemented prior to the fall. Falls with employee assis- tance were defined as falls in which the pa- tient was assisted by a staff member, and the patient’s descent was slowed by the staff in an effort to minimize the fall impact.22 Phys- ical restraint(s) use was measured with any physical restraints that were in use at the time of patient fall.22 Patient gender was re- ported as either male or female. Patient fall

risk status was determined on the basis of the most recent risk assessment. The estimated coefficient is related to the change of every 10 percentage points at the unit level.

Data analyses

All statistical analyses were conducted with STATA 14 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas). Both descriptive and regression anal- yses were performed. Prior to the regres- sion analyses, correlation and interaction tests were carried out to examine the correlations and interactions among independent vari- ables. Because of strong correlations between RNHPPD and TNHPPD (r = 0.81), RNHPPD and RN skill mix (r = 0.53), only RNHPPD, non-RNHPPD, and turnover rate among nurse staffing factors were included in the models for analyses. A quadratic term of RNHPPD also was included in the models to test the poten- tial nonlinear relationship between injurious fall rates and RNHPPD.

The hierarchical negative binominal regres- sion model was used to account for the complex sample with multiple units within hospitals.23 In the regression model, the an- nual count of total injurious falls at the unit level was the outcome measure, with the an- nual count of total falls at the unit level as the exposure variable. Falls with missing data on 1 or more variables were excluded. In addition to the fixed effects of independent variables, a random hospital intercept was included in the model to control for the correlation among units within a hospital. The STATA procedure menbreg for multilevel data was used for mod- eling, with the significance level set at .05. The incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated to show the associations of independent vari- ables with the injurious fall rate.

For model selection, a teardown method was used. The initial model included all 17 predictor variables. Variables within a group (ie, structure, process, nurse staffing, and unit type) with large P values were removed (P > .05) and the resulting reduced model was tested and compared with the previous model. Using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) value as a criterion, multiple models

Injurious Falls in Acute Care Hospitals 23

were tested and the final model included 6 significant predictor variables with the small- est AIC value.

RESULTS

Descriptive analysis

The frequencies and descriptive statistics are shown in Supplemental Digital Content, Table (available at: http://links.lww.com/ JNCQ/A324). Hospitals with medium bed size or teaching status accounted for about one- half of the sample, whereas Magnet hospi- tals were about 20% of the sample. Medical- surgical units (35.7%) accounted for the most units included in the sample of 2229 units. There were on average 78.9 reported falls (range, 1-864) and 5.2 injurious falls (range, 1-31) annually across the units during the study period. The average patient-days were 17.11, ranging from 0.36 to 110.24 (unit: 1000 patient-days). RNHPPD on average was 6.28, with a range of 1.15 to 14.96.

Hierarchical regression analysis

Hierarchical regression modeling was used to estimate the associations between predica- tor variables and the injurious fall rate. The Table lists IRR values, with 95% confidence intervals and P values for different variables included in the initial and final models.

Hospital characteristics

Among hospital structure characteristics, teaching status was the only significant vari- able. Compared with falls in nonteaching hos- pitals, falls in teaching hospitals were 13% less likely to be injurious falls (P = .001). There was no significant difference between Mag- net and non-Magnet hospitals and among hos- pitals with different bed sizes.

Unit characteristics

Falls on surgical units were 8% more likely to be injurious falls than those in other units (P = .021). No significant differences were found in non-RNHPPD and turnover rate on injurious fall rates. RNHPPD was the only significant variable among nurse staffing

factors that showed a significant nonlinear relationship with injurious falls. On the basis of the estimated coefficients of linear and quadratic terms of RNHPPD, the injurious fall risk was estimated to be lowest at 5.08 RNH- PPD. With all the other independent variables controlled, the injurious fall risk was ex- pected to decrease with increasing RNHPPD till RNHPPD reached 5.08. After RNHPPD reached 5.08, the expected injurious fall risk increased with increased RNHPPD. Supple- mental Digital Content, Figure 2 (available at: http://links.lww.com/JNCQ/A325), shows the relationships between injurious fall risk and RNHPPD based on models estimated for the 4 different unit types separately. This figure shows the consistent nonlinear association across different unit types ex- cept for medical units. The variable, 1000 patient-days (total annual patient-days on the unit divided by 1000), also was identified to be a significant factor: with every 1000-day increase in patient-days, there was likely a 2% decrease in injurious fall risks (P < .001).

Nursing process factors

Among nursing process factors, falls with- out employee assistance was the only signifi- cant factor. At the unit level, the risk of injuri- ous falls was expected to increase by 4% when the percentage of falls without employee as- sistance increased by 10 percentage points (P = .005). In addition, the risk of injuri- ous falls was expected to decrease by 2.5% when the percentage of patients at fall risk in- creased by 10 percentage points on the units (P = .009).

In addition to fixed effects, the random ef- fect of the model was estimated for the hos- pital level. The injurious fall rates for an indi- vidual hospital might vary from 19% lower to 24% higher than the average injurious fall rate of all hospitals, assuming all other variables are fixed.

DISCUSSION

The major contribution of the study is the examination of the associations between

http://links.lww.com/JNCQ/A324

http://links.lww.com/JNCQ/A325

24 JOURNAL OF NURSING CARE QUALITY/JANUARY–MARCH 2018

Table. Estimates of Associations Between the Injurious Fall Rate and Predicator Variables

Initial Model (AICa = 9368.685) Final Model (AIC = 9351.538)

Fixed Effects IRR (95% CI) P IRR (95% CI) P

Bed size (large vs) Small 1.10 (0.95-1.26) .205 . . . . . . Medium 1.04 (0.94-1.15) .412 . . . . . .

Teaching 0.88 (0.81-0.96) .004 0.87 (0.80-0.94) .001 Magnet 1.00 (0.91-1.11) .942 . . . . . .

Unit type (medical vs) Surgical 1.07 (0.99-1.16) .066 1.08 (1.01-1.16)b .021 Medical-surgical 0.97 (0.91-1.04) .424 . . . Step-down 0.98 (0.90-1.06) .576 . . . . . .

RNHPPD 0.86 (0.78-0.95) .002 0.86 (0.78-0.95) .002 RNHPPD2 1.01 (1.01-1.02) <.001 1.01 (1.01-1.02) <.001 Non-RNHPPD 1.00 (0.97-1.04) .788 . . . . . . Turnover 0.99 (0.99-1.00) .211 . . . . . . Annual patient-days

(1000 d) 0.98 (0.99-1.00) <.001 0.98 (0.98-0.982) <.001

Male genderc 1.00 (0.98-1.02) .905 . . . . . . At fall riskc 0.978 (0.96-0.99) .033 0.975 (0.96-0.99) .009 No risk assessmentc 1.00 (0.95-1.06) .865 . . . . . . No fall protocol

implementationc 1.01 (0.98-1.03) .561 . . . . . .

Restraint in usec 1.02 (0.96-1.07) .525 . . . . . . Falls without employee

assistancec 1.04 (1.01-1.07) .005 1.04 (1.01-1.07) .005

95% Range of 95% Range of Random Effects SD (95% CI) Variation SD (95% CI) Variation

Hospital level 0.11 (0.09-0.14) (0.81-1.24) 0.11 (0.09-0.14) (0.81-1.24)

Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike information criterion; CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio; RN, registered nurse; RNHPPD, RN hours per patient-day; SD, standard deviation; 95% range of variation = [exp (−1.96 SD), exp (1.96 SD)]; TNHPPD, total nursing hours per patient-day. aAIC is a model selection criterion, with a smaller value indicating a better model fit. bSurgical units versus all other units. cThis variable is a proportion. The IRR is estimated for every 10 percentage points increase in the variable for better interpretation.

injurious falls and multilevel factors using the most recently available NDNQI data (2013- 2014). The multilevel factors included in this study were hospital and unit characteristics as well as unit-level patient characteristics. One unique aspect is that the study focused on injurious fall rates only among adult in- patients with falls, whereas previous studies examined falls or injurious fall rates among

all inpatients. Given this unique aspect of this study, the results may not be comparable with findings from previous studies, although pre- vious findings could provide some meaningful background information.

In this study, falls in teaching hospitals were 13% less likely to be injurious falls. Although no previous studies have focused on injurious falls among adult inpatient falls,

Injurious Falls in Acute Care Hospitals 25

the findings from a study examining injurious falls among adult inpatients suggested that patients tended to have fewer injurious falls in teaching hospitals.11 Because organizational culture emphasizes quality and safety in teaching hospitals, quality of care and patient safety often are institutional priorities.24

In addition, teaching hospitals often have positive work environments compared with nonteaching hospitals25; this also contributes to better quality of patient care. Evidence shows that hospitals with better work en- vironments have better quality of care and patient outcomes.26,27 This was validated in this study, with the low occurrence of inju- rious falls (IRR = 0.87; P = .001) in teaching hospitals. This finding has important clinical implication. To decrease injurious falls and increase patient care quality, hospital and nursing leadership can develop strategies to emphasize quality and safety, promote positive work environment, and increase nurse job satisfaction.

Interestingly, Magnet status was not associ- ated with injurious falls among inpatient falls in this study. In the literature,7 Magnet hospi- tals were found to have fewer injurious falls among adult inpatients than among those in non-Magnet hospitals, whereas findings of the associations between falls and Magnet status were inconclusive.13,28,29 Findings from pre- vious studies reported a significant negative relationship between hospital size and injuri- ous fall rates among all adult inpatients.11,13

However, in this study, the association was nonsignificant between hospital size and in- jurious fall rates among inpatients with falls. Because the results from this study are not comparable with findings from other studies on injurious falls due to different samples (ie, all adult inpatients vs inpatients with falls) and the inconclusive findings on the associa- tions between hospital Magnet status and bed size, more research is needed to explore the associations.

Several significant unit factors including unit type and unit staffing were associated with injurious inpatient falls. The findings from this study indicated that falls on surgi-

cal units were 8% more likely to be injurious falls than those on medical units. Although no similar findings could be identified in the lit- erature, a longitudinal study reported that sur- gical units had increased fall rates from 2004 to 2009.29 The increased fall and injurious fall rates in surgical units might be associated with the outcomes of the Enhanced Recovery Af- ter Surgery (ERAS) programs implemented in acute care hospitals. In the ERAS programs, patients usually start early postoperative mo- bilization and have a shorter LOS than those in traditional operative programs.30,31 Early postoperative mobilization can cause ortho- static intolerance, which further can lead to falls or fall-associated injuries.32 Our study finding also suggested that the variable of 1000 patient-days was negatively associated with injurious falls. Patient-days, particularly 1000 patient-days, have been used widely in nursing research for nursing quality mea- surement such as inpatient falls and pressure ulcers.11,15 Given the fact that patients in the ERAS programs tend to have shorter LOS, and the negative association between injurious fall risk and 1000 patient-days, further research on injurious falls should be conducted on sur- gical units through comparing injurious fall rates in units implementing ERAS programs with those without ERAS programs.

In our findings, unit RNHPPD was the only significant predictor among nurse staffing factors, although the association between RNHPPD and injurious falls was nonlinear. There were negative relationships between injurious fall rates and RNHPPD for up to 5 RNHPPD; the relationships became positive after RNHPPD reached 5. To date, this study was the second study that examined the association between injurious fall rates and RNHPPD.13 Dunton and colleagues13 identi- fied similar nonlinear associations between injurious fall rates among inpatients and TNH- PPD for medical units and RN skill mix for step-down units, with a changing point at 9.

The different findings on the associations between nurse staffing and injurious fall rates and general fall rates might be due to the differences in the outcome variables of the

26 JOURNAL OF NURSING CARE QUALITY/JANUARY–MARCH 2018

studies. In this study, the primary outcome was injurious fall rates from those patients who had a general fall, whereas other studies focused just on general falls. The nonlinear relationship between injurious fall rates and RNHPPD also may be related indirectly to pa- tient acuity levels. In the last few decades, many hospitals have implemented Acuity Adaptable Model (AAM) in delivering patient care.33-35 In AAM, postsurgical patients admit- ted from the intensive care unit or a step-down level of care through discharge and nurse staffing levels are based on patient acuity lev- els. In general, these patients are at higher acuity level and require higher nurse staffing levels.34 It is uncertain how many units in this study have implemented the AAM. Thus, the researchers cannot draw the conclusion that the nonlinear association between injurious fall rates and RNHPPD was due to different patient acuity levels.

The nonlinear association between injuri- ous falls and RNHPPD calls for appropriate RN staffing in acute care settings. Nurse man- agers need to ensure adequate RN staffing, especially at the lower levels of RNHPPD (ie, up to 5.08 hours), because RN understaffing can place patients at high risk for injurious falls. Nurse managers need to be cognizant of patient acuity levels to ensure adequate RN staffing. Further research is needed to in- clude patient acuity levels in exploring the as- sociation between RNHPPD and injurious fall rates.

Among nursing process factors, falls with- out employee assistance were a significant factor contributing to injurious falls. This finding is consistent with the findings from previous studies.10,11 In a recent study of unas- sisted inpatient falls, Staggs and colleagues11

found that falls without employee assistance were 59% more likely to result in injuries than falls with employee assistance. Similarly, the findings from a study comparing inpatient falls and injurious falls between teaching and nonteaching hospitals suggested that unassisted falls were significantly associated with increased injuries resulting from falls in both teaching and nonteaching hospitals.10

This finding has significant clinical impli-

cations. In patient care, nursing staff need to monitor patients closely and provide assistance as needed, given the association between unassisted falls and injurious falls.

One important finding was that the risk of injurious falls was expected to decrease by 2.5% when the percentage of patients at fall risk increases by 10 percentage points on the units. This finding indicates the importance of nurses conducting fall risk assessment for all inpatients and implementing fall protocols. When a patient is identified at fall risk from the assessment, nurses become more aware of the patient’s fall risk and implement a fall prevention protocol. Chari and colleagues8

found that patients were less likely to have fractures from falls if they were evaluated for fall risk upon admission. A previous study also revealed that fall prevention protocol imple- mentation was significantly associated with increased assisted falls.11 This has significant clinical implication since unassisted falls are more likely to result in injuries.

Study limitations

The limitations of the study are similar to the limitations of conducting secondary data analyses. The generalizability of the study findings may be limited because NDNQI participating hospitals have characteristics different from those of the nonparticipating hospitals. NDNQI hospitals are mainly not- for-profit hospitals with more, large Magnet hospitals13 compared with nonparticipating hospitals. Another limitation is that findings may be not be generalizable to all adult patients hospitalized because the study sample included only adult patients who had a fall while hospitalized. Patients might have been identified at high risk for falls but did not necessarily fall. In addition, the study did not exclude repeat falls. One patient may have multiple falls during the hospital stay, but the data obtained from NDNQI did not contain information on repeat falls.

CONCLUSIONS

This study examined the associations be- tween injurious falls and multilevel structure,

Injurious Falls in Acute Care Hospitals 27

process, and patient factors in acute care hospitals. Several hospital (teaching status) and unit (surgical) organizational factors, as well as nurse staffing (RNHPPD) and process factors (fall risk, unassisted falls), were identi- fied as significant factors contributing to inju- rious falls. The study findings have important

implications for clinical practice and future re- search. Researchers need to further examine the impact of multilevel factors on injurious falls. Hospital administrators and nurse man- agers should consider nurse staffing and pro- cess factors when planning and implementing fall prevention programs.

REFERENCES

1. Oliver D, Healey F, Haines TP. Preventing falls and fall-related injuries in hospitals. Clin Geriatr Med. 2010;26(4):645-692.

2. Zhao Y, Kim H. Older adult inpatient falls in acute care hospitals: intrinsic, extrinsic and environmental factors. J Gerontol Nurs. 2015;41(7):29-43.

3. Wong CA, Recktenwald AJ, Jones ML, Waterman BM, Bollini ML, Dunagan W. The cost of serious fall-related injuries at three Midwestern hospitals. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2011;37(2):81-87.

4. Cameron ID, Gillespie LD, Robertson MC, et al. Interventions for preventing falls in older peo- ple in care facilities and hospitals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD005465. doi:10.1002/ 14651858.CD005465.pub2.

5. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020: Improving the Health of Amer- icans. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Of- fice; 2010.

6. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare program: changes to the hospital inpatient prospec- tive payment systems and fiscal year 2009 rates. Fed Regist. 2008;73(16):48433-49084.

7. Bouldin ELD, Andresen EM, Dunton NE, et al. Falls among adult patients hospitalized in the United States: prevalence and trends. J Patient Saf. 2013;9(1):13-17.

8. Chari S, McRae P, Varghese P, Ferrar K, Haines TP. Pre- dictors of fracture from falls reported in hospital and residential care facilities: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2013;3. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002948.

9. Williams T, Szekendi M, Thomas S. An anal- ysis of patient falls and fall prevention pro- grams across academic medical centers. J Nurs Care Qual. 2014;29(1):19-29. doi:10.1097/NCQ .0b013e3182a0cd19.

10. Krauss M, Nguyen S, Dunagan C, et al. Circum- stances of patient falls and injuries in 9 hospitals in a Midwestern healthcare system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(3):544-550.

11. Staggs VS, Mion LC, Shorr RI. Assisted and unassisted falls: different events, different outcomes, different implications for quality of hospital care. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014;40(8):358-364.

12. Dunton N, Gajewski B, Taunton RL, Moore J. Nurse staffing and patient falls on acute care hospital units. Nurs Outlook. 2004;52(1):53-59.

13. Dunton N, Gajewski B, Klaus S, Pierson B. The rela- tionship of nursing workforce characteristics to pa- tient outcomes. Online J Issues Nurs. 2007;12(3). Article 3. doi:10.3912/OJIN.Vol12No03Man03.

14. Kane RL, Shamliyan TA, Mueller C, Duval S, Wilt TJ. The association of registered nurse staffing levels and patient outcomes. Systematic review and meta- analysis. Med Care. 2007;45(12):1195-1204.

15. Lake ET, Cheung RB. Are patient falls and pressure ulcers sensitive to nurse staffing? West J Nurs Res. 2006;28(6):654-677.

16. Berzlanovich AM, Schöpfer J, Keil W. Deaths due to physical restraint. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012;109(3): 27-32.

17. Tzeng H, Yin C. Physical restraint use rate and total fall and injurious fall rates: an exploratory study in two US acute care hospitals. Open J Nurs. 2012;2: 170-175.

18. Coyle YM, Battles JB. Using antecedents of medical care to develop valid quality of care measures. Int J Qual Health C. 1999;11(1):5-12.

19. Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260:1743-1748.

20. Garrard L, Boyle DK, Simon M, Dunton N, Gajewski B. Reliability and validity of the NDNQI R© injury falls measure. West J Nurs Res. 2016;38(1):111-128.

21. National Quality Forum. NQF-endorsed measures for patient safety. http://www.qualityforum.org. Pub- lished 2015. Accessed March 2, 2016.

22. National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators (NDNQI R©). Guidelines for Data Collection and Sub- mission on Patient Falls Indicator: Inpatient and Ambulatory Areas. Kansas City, KS: Press Ganey As- sociates Inc; 2014.

23. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. Multilevel and Longitu- dinal Modeling Using Stata. 3rd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press; 2012.

24. Pingleton S, Davis K, Dickler R. Characteristics of quality and patient safety curricula in major teaching hospitals. Am J Med Qual. 2010;25(4):305-311.

http://www.qualityforum.org

28 JOURNAL OF NURSING CARE QUALITY/JANUARY–MARCH 2018

25. Hall LM, Doran D, Sidani S, Pink L. Teaching and com- munity hospital work environments. West J Nurs Res. 2006;28(6):710-725.

26. Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Clarke S, et al. Importance of work environments on hospital outcomes in nine countries. Int J Qual Health Care. 2011;23(4):357- 364.

27. Aiken LH, Sermeus W, Van den Heede K, et al. Pa- tient safety, satisfaction, and quality of hospital care: cross sectional surveys of nurses and patients in 12 countries in Europe and the United States. BMJ. 2012;344:e1717.

28. Lake ET, Shang J, Klaus S, Dunton N. Patient falls: association with hospital Magnet R© status and nursing unit staffing. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33(5):413-425.

29. He J, Dunton N, Staggs V. Unit-level time trends in inpatient fall rates of US hospitals. Med Care. 2012;50(9):800-807.

30. Feldman LS, Lee L, Fiore J. What outcomes are important in the assessment of Enhanced Recov-

ery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways? Can J Anaesth. 2015;62(2):120-130.

31. Watson DS. The benefits of enhanced recovery path- ways in perioperative care. AORN J. 2015;102(5): 464-467.

32. Jans O, Bundgaard-Nielsen M, Solgaard S, Johansson PI, Kehlet H. Orthostatic intolerance during early mo- bilization after fast-track hip arthroplasty. Br J Anes- thesiol. 2012;108(3):436-443.

33. Emaminia A, Corcoran PC, Siegenthaler MP, et al. The universal bed model for patient care improves out- come and lowers cost in cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143(2):475-481.

34. Hennon MW, Kothari A, Maloney JD, Weigel T. Imple- mentation of an Acuity Adaptable Patient Care Unit is associated with improved outcomes after major pul- monary resections. J Surg Res. 2011;170(1):e17-e21.

35. Venditti A. Patient-centered care: impacting qual- ity with the acuity adaptable model. Nurs Manage. 2015;46(7):36-42.