
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0310139
PONE-D-23-40350
Research Article
Medicine and Health Sciences
Epidemiology
Medical Risk Factors
People and Places
Population Groupings
Professions
Medical Personnel
Nurses
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Care Providers
Nurses
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Human Learning
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Human Learning
Social Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Human Learning
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Learning and Memory
Learning
Human Learning
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Care Facilities
Nursing Homes
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Social Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Sensory Perception
Biology and Life Sciences
Bioengineering
Biotechnology
Medical Devices and Equipment
Engineering and Technology
Bioengineering
Biotechnology
Medical Devices and Equipment
Medicine and Health Sciences
Medical Devices and Equipment
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Design
Qualitative Studies
Social Sciences
Sociology
Communications
Social Communication
Staff perspectives on fall prevention activities in long-term care facilities for older residents: "Brief but often" staff education is key
Staff perspectives on fall prevention activities in long-term care facilities for older residents
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6370-971X
Albasha Neah Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Methodology Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 2 *
Curtin Catriona Formal analysis 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6489-183X
McCullagh Ruth Conceptualization Methodology Writing – review & editing 3
Cornally Nicola Conceptualization Methodology Writing – review & editing 4
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7790-9552
Timmons Suzanne Conceptualization Formal analysis Methodology Writing – review & editing 1 ¤
1 Centre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork City, Ireland
2 Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3 Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Clinical Therapies, University College Cork, Cork City, Ireland
4 School of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, Cork City, Ireland
Rababa Mohammad Jamil Editor
Jordan University of Science and Technology, JORDAN
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

¤ Current address: Centre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, St Finbarr’s Hospital, Cork City, Ireland

* E-mail: neahalbasha@gmail.com
9 9 2024
2024
19 9 e03101396 12 2023
25 8 2024
© 2024 Albasha et al
2024
Albasha et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Introduction

Falls are a serious health problem in long-term care facilities (LTCFs), affecting more than 50% of residents. A key role of LTCF staff is to assess fall risks and implement fall prevention activities. Understanding the barriers and facilitators is key to successful implementation.

Methods

This descriptive qualitative study involving four LTCF facilities (varied provider types and sizes) in southwest Ireland. We recruited a convenience sample of 17 LTCF staff, who participated in semi-structured online 1:1 interviews (n = 7) or small group interviews (n = 10). The data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s reflective thematic analysis.

Results

The participants included two directors of nursing, three therapists, one ward manager, one general practitioner, five nurses and five healthcare assistants. Six main themes were identified, reflecting factors that influenced fall prevention: a need for sufficient staff and appropriate skill mix; fall policy, documentation and leadership; equipment and safe environments; person-centred care; staff knowledge, skills and awareness in falls prevention; and staff communication and collaborative working. A wide range of approaches that supported LTCF staff to overcome barriers were identified, including audits and feedback, falls champions, fall prevention leaders, daily communication (e.g., safety pauses) and staff collaboration. Formal multidisciplinary meetings and identification systems to highlight residents at high risk of falling were not considered helpful. Staff suggested that education should be briefer, ongoing and practice-based (“brief but often”) to promote ownership and responsibility.

Conclusion

LTCF staff identified several approaches to prevent falls in LTCFs as part of usual care, rather than lengthy, formal meetings and training. The potential role of families in fall prevention was under-appreciated and should be investigated further.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004242 Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6370-971X
Albasha Neah This current study was conducted as a part of a PhD project for the first author, funded by Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Grant Number: Not applicable). Data AvailabilityData cannot be shared publicly because participants were interviewed, with interviews transcribed verbatim. Our data are qualitative and involve sensitive information, and we must follow the policy of our research ethics board in UCC. It would therefore be inappropriate for this to be made public,as participants could be identified by the context of their interview responses (even though data is anonymised), which may include some overt criticism of the health service or local management structures. For requests or questions for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data, contact Christopher Walsh, administrator and manager at the Centre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University College Cork, via email: ChristopherWalsh@ucc.ie, or phone: 021-462-7347.
Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because participants were interviewed, with interviews transcribed verbatim. Our data are qualitative and involve sensitive information, and we must follow the policy of our research ethics board in UCC. It would therefore be inappropriate for this to be made public,as participants could be identified by the context of their interview responses (even though data is anonymised), which may include some overt criticism of the health service or local management structures. For requests or questions for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data, contact Christopher Walsh, administrator and manager at the Centre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University College Cork, via email: ChristopherWalsh@ucc.ie, or phone: 021-462-7347.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Falls are a major health problem in older persons. Globally, falls are the second leading cause of death, resulting in approximately 684,000 deaths yearly [1]. Falls can have physical and psychological consequences, such as fractures and fear of falling [2, 3]. According to estimates, the annual cost to the Irish economy of hospitalising older people with fall-related injuries is €59 million [4]. Fall rates in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are approximately three times higher than that in community-based settings, with an estimated 1.7 falls per resident-year [5, 6]. Most LTCF residents are frail and vulnerable, with co-morbidities and disabilities [7]; thus, up to half experience falls annually, and 40% fall recurrently [8, 9]. Additionally, 10 to 25% of falls cause serious injuries, compared to 5% in the community [5, 6], with fractures occurring in 3–5% of residents yearly [2].

Many factors cause falls among the elderly. These can be classified into intrinsic factors (such as ageing, medical conditions, cognitive impairment, etc.), extrinsic factors (such as environmental hazards and medications) and psychological factors (such as fear of falling) [5, 10, 11]. These factors can be readily identified, and some are modifiable [5, 11, 12]. Many fall prevention interventions exist [6, 8, 13, 14]. Multifactorial interventions have been proven to reduce falls in LTCFs, whereas single-intervention effects are inconsistent [6, 8, 13].

Fall prevention is an important clinical quality indicator [15]. LTCF staff play a significant role in identifying residents at increased risk of falling, assessing specific falls risks and implementing fall prevention measures [4, 16]. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) effort is needed to prevent falls [17]. Reducing the burden of falls, improving residents’ outcomes and facilitating changes in LTCFs require staff to become proactive rather than reactive [16–18]. Continuous professional development is vital for staff to change their behaviour, linked to enhanced knowledge and skills, while meeting residents’ and providers’ needs [19, 20].

However, given the complexity of falls, frailty, morbidity and the functional capacity of residents, staff encounter several barriers to fall prevention interventions [17]. In 2017, a systematic review (SR) of eight mixed-methods studies found 17 facilitators and 27 barriers in daily practice [21]. Most occur at social and organisational levels, while resident and economic/political levels were less influential. The most cited facilitators were communication and equipment availability. Barriers included staff feeling overwhelmed, helpless, frustrated and underconfident in their ability to manage falls, along with staffing issues, limited knowledge and limited skills (e.g., general clinical skill deficiencies), and poor communication [21]. It is necessary to identify techniques to overcome these barriers [21, 22].

This study was part of a wider mixed-methods exploration of falls prevention in LTCFs [23, 24], with the following key objectives:

to explore the general perceptions of LTCF staff regarding fall prevention

to explore perceived barriers in preventing falls, and suggested solutions

to explore the facilitators that may support staff in fall prevention

Materials and methods

Study design

This research involved a descriptive qualitative study design. Reporting is based on the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) [25].

Setting

In the southwest Irish counties of Cork and Kerry, which share residential care governance and funding, 13 LTCFs for older people (from a total of 71) had participated in our previous survey and were eligible for inclusion [23].

Sampling of sites

A sampling framework was used, based on provider type, facility size (under/over 50 beds) and location (urban/rural). Five sites were selected; two private, two public and one voluntary. Four were in Cork (geographically larger and more densely populated than Kerry) and one in Kerry. Three were in urban locations; three were large.

Participation selection

Sampling of participants

The primary researcher (NA) contacted the LTCF directors of nursing (DONs) by email and shared study information, asking for site participation in interviews, and a site champion to help co-ordinate the planned interviews: up to two 1:1 interviews, and one group interview (GI) per site.

Participants were employed full-time or part-time for at least three months at the site to be eligible. A purposive sample of LTCF staff roles was sought:

A 1:1 interview was offered to DONs, ward managers, physiotherapists (PT), occupational therapists (OT) and visiting general practitioners (GP), etc., where participants occupied a senior or unique role.

GIs were offered to staff nurses and healthcare assistants (HCAs), involving 4–6 participants, to reduce the influence of persons in authority, such as DONs and ward managers, and to increase their confidence in discussing barriers.

All targeted participants received invitation emails with study details, along with a consent form. All interviews were conducted online using Microsoft Teams. Participants received two email reminders to remind them prior to the scheduled interview, and to obtain their signed informed consent if not already supplied.

Data collection

A semi-structured interview guide was developed (see S1 File). Several probing questions were asked to stimulate broader discussion. NA moderated all interviews. No prior relationship existed between participants or sites and the researcher. Digital recordings were made using Microsoft Teams. The 1:1 interviews lasted 17–40 minutes, while GIs lasted 30–60 minutes. Recruitment took place from June 2022 to December 2022.

Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim by NA and checked for accuracy. Data saturation was achieved after four 1:1 interviews and two GIs; however, additional interviews/focus groups were conducted to confirm emerging findings and achieve LTCF staff role diversity in order to enhance transferability.

Analysis

We used NVivo software (QSR International) Version 2021 to organise the qualitative data and applied reflexive thematic analysis (TA) based on Braun and Clarke’s six-stage analytical process [26–28]:

Data familiarisation: Listening to recordings, reading/re-reading transcripts, taking notes on initial insights.

Coding the data: The transcripts were divided into meaningful units and labelled with open codes, giving equal weight to all information. As transcripts were word-rich, the codes tended to be phrases, to maintain contextual information and capture meaning. As coding rounds progressed (see below), highly similar codes were combined.

Generating initial themes: The data were categorised according to meaning patterns derived from the text’s content. Considering the codes, reviewing the original data, and using notes, NA produced a set of themes and subthemes.

Reviewing and developing themes: This involved iterations between codes and themes/subthemes, choosing quotations to illustrate concepts, and assessing the relationship between ideas and patterns.

Refining, defining and naming themes: This was performed using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. We extracted codes, subthemes and themes to a spreadsheet, to identify overlaps, thus clarifying themes, subthemes and standalone ideas.

Producing the report: After reflection and feedback from all research team members, engagement with the literature and revision, a final thematic structure was developed.

Trustworthiness

Four criteria were used to establish trustworthiness: dependability, confirmability, credibility and transferability [29].

Dependability: The research team developed the methodology, interview guides and research questions. NA conducted a mock GI with three experts in qualitative research to obtain input on the clarity of questions, feasibility and factors influencing participants’ views. Memos and annotations were used to ensure audibility.

Credibility: Notes were recorded by the researcher following each interview, detailing participant interaction, body language and facial expressions. During GIs, we used member checking, seeking participants’ opinions regarding other participants’ perspectives. NA coded all transcripts; a second researcher (CC) independently coded two manuscripts. These independent codes were compared, using reflective notes where available, to ensure reliability and validity, and to cultivate reflexivity (two coding rounds). The refinement of themes through reflection was supported by a senior researcher (ST; 3 rounds) for further validation.

Confirmability: During interpretation, supporting verbatim quotes from participants were gathered. As part of the interpretation process, all researchers gave input.

Transferability: This was achieved by describing the data collection process and reporting on the range of staff roles involved, supported by data saturation and providing rich description of the findings [30].

Ethics

The study was approved by the Social Research Ethics Committee (SREC) at University College Cork (UCC) (approval number: Log 2022–023). Written, informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study’s goals were explained to all participants, who understood that participation was voluntary, that they could review the transcript and amend or delete sections and that they could withdraw at any time up to two weeks post-interview, without explanation. Participants were informed of the means of ensuring confidentiality, such as the coding of quotes (e.g., GI 1, PT1, etc.). Anonymised transcripts were stored on university hard drives which were password-protected.

Results

Participant characteristics and general views on falls in LTCFs

Two public sites, one private site and one voluntary site participated. Three were large, and one was small, with three located in Cork, one in Kerry. Seventeen LTCF staff (15 female, two male) participated in total, across three GIs (n = 10; five nurses and five HCAs) and seven 1:1 interviews. Almost all had experience of working with older people in LCTFs for 11+ years. The seven 1:1 interviewees involved two DONs, two PTs, one ward manager (Ward M), a therapy manager (Therapy M) and a GP.

Generally, opinions varied on whether falls could be prevented. Some believed falls were inevitable: “Even […] all the things we put in to prevent the falling, they still fall by the time we get to them; they’re on the floor whatever we do” (HCA, GI 3). However, most thought falls could be reduced: “I suppose there are some falls that can be prevented, others not” (DON1); “the falls risk can be reduced but cannot be fully prevented” (Ward M). Participants cited several reasons why falling cannot be completely prevented: residents’ ages, frailty, cognitive ability, level of dependency and belief in their abilities. Some stated falls are complex, caused by multifaceted factors: “We know falls are multi-factorial. You can have a variety of factors, both physical, intrinsic, and extrinsic factors, that produce falls” (DON2). Fluctuation in patient status was also problematic: “Sometimes, the nature of patients can change over the course of the day if they become unwell, or if you have somebody with dementia […] maybe something happens over night or during the day, and their function changes” (PT1).

Factors that can reduce falls

These are organised under six key themes (Table 1).

10.1371/journal.pone.0310139.t001 Table 1 Themes/subthemes within staff perspectives on factors that can reduce falls among older residents.

Themes	Subthemes	
The need for sufficient staff and appropriate skill mix	• Staffing level and appropriate skill mix
• Access to therapists	
Fall policy, documentation and leadership	• Audits and feedback
• Fall policy, risk registers, resources
• Supportive leadership and management	
Equipment and safe environment	• A safe environment
• Assistive equipment and supplies
• Identification systems for residents at high risk of falling	
Person-centred care	• Individualising care
• Assessing fall risk
• Knowing residents holistically
• Promoting residents’ autonomy and independence
• Involving residents and families in fall prevention	
Staff knowledge, skills and awareness in falls prevention	• Staff education and training
• Fall champions
• Staff motivation, self-efficacy and responsibility
• Practice-based learning	
Staff communication and collaborative working.	• Staff communication and teamwork
• Multidisciplinary approaches	

Theme 1: The need for sufficient staff and appropriate skill mix

This was the most common theme discussed in all interviews. It involved two subthemes: staffing levels and appropriate skill mix, and access to therapists.

Staffing levels and appropriate skill mix. According to participants, increasing staffing levels and maintaining an appropriate staff-to-resident ratio are key to preventing falls in LTCFs. Staffing shortages and staff-to-resident ratios were commonly discussed in relation to the care needs of highly dependent residents, along with the provision of supervision. Falls are most common during night shifts and handover, due to low staffing levels.

“You have only two nurses and one care assistant at night, so it is hard to be eyes everywhere and, in every room” (Nurse, GI 3).

“We have got a skeleton staff of maybe two nurses and two healthcare assistants per 20 or 30 patients, and in the night, we do not have enough staffing” (GP).

Other staffing issues included staff movement within the LTCF, time constraints, staff workload, staff turnover due to the COVID-19 period and adverse effects from the work environment, such as back pain and lower interest in LTCF posts:

“I think there is a lot of [what] I would call COVID fatigue […] the staff are tired, and so, for the first time here, we have had a lot of staff actually stopping work and giving up” (PT1).

“I think people, especially after COVID, do not want to come into this job. We got the hard jobs […] I think a lot of people have left this career” (HCA, GI 1).

Some suggested agency staff were a barrier, due to unfamiliarity with residents and the environment: “They give great care, but they just do not know the residents” (PT1); “Agency staff […] do not know anything what is happening around the environment and around the residents” (HCA, GI 1). Participants believed that more experienced staff at LTCFs better promoted fall prevention: “They really need those staff who are more experienced there; they need a more long-term staff there who are aware of what is happening in the environment and the residents” (Nurse, GI 1).

Two interviewees discussed inconsistent staffing levels and specialised care input between public and private facilities. The latter had low staffing levels and variable therapy input, with low resident-to-staff ratios during daytime/nighttime, leading to group supervision and the restriction of resident freedom:

“The [public] nursing homes have to have a certain number of carers per residents’ numbers, and in private nursing homes, we do not have that. It is a huge problem” (PT1).

“A lot of private nursing homes would have a tendency to […] corral the residents grouped into one sitting room, which is awful […] they [try to] increase supervision” (PT2).

Staffing levels should be standardised and regulated in all LTCFs to ensure consistency:

“[Public] nursing homes have that regulation in place, but not private nursing homes […] to try and create an environment where we can have consistency across the board in all nursing homes, both public and private” (PT1).

The potential cost-balance in terms of the burden of fall-related consequences was discussed by one:

“we need to resource [LTCFs] so that you have got adequate staffing levels to keep patients safe and eventually save money, because not having a patient in accident and emergency and going for surgery for a fractured femur will save an awful lot of money” (GP).

Access to therapists. Most participants cited insufficient therapy input in LTCFs as a barrier, particularly PTs and OTs, especially in private LTCFs:

“In most nursing homes, we have a physio service for 2/3 hours, once a week at most, and it is just not sufficient. You cannot follow a falls programme or fall prevention system with just three hours of physio input” (PT1).

“I think at least two physiotherapists to look after those residents, because they need an assessment […] Out of 110 residents, we have only one physiotherapist, and sometimes, if she is on holiday, we will wait for two weeks or one week until she comes back” (HCA, GI 1).

Not all sites had this issue: “We have a physiotherapist on site, and we have a lot of occupational therapists that link them with a physio, so that would not [be a problem in] this home, but I could understand why it is to others” (DON2).

Most participants recognised the value of PT/OT roles, discussing how they assist with walking aids, equipment and ergonomics during assessment and care planning. Therapists were seen to deal with the frailty (mobility) of LTCF residents, whereas nursing and support staff mainly focussed on daily nursing care: “the OT is probably more valuable to us, because [our patients] are so physically frail” (Ward M).

The role of therapists as educators and trainers was stated by one:

“I do think physiotherapists and occupational therapists have an important role [concerning] staff education and training. I do not think it’s as much about hands-on physiotherapy as it is about education and training for staff” (GP).

Participants had some suggestions for augmenting PT/OT roles via assistants, whether “a physiotherapy assistant” (GP) or the participation of healthcare assistants in physio sessions: “Demonstrating, like, to join the session with care staff, to show, actually, this can work, and it will have [longer-term] benefits” (PT2).

Theme 2: Fall policy, documentation and leadership

Most participants discussed these as factors to reduce falls, under three subthemes: audits and feedback; fall policy, risk registers, resources; and supportive leadership and management.

Audit and feedback. This topic was discussed extensively by all seven interviewees and one GI, and was considered a crucial strategy to facilitate fall prevention. Views included the role of auditing in providing a visual guide, as a quality care indicator, and in directing change via action plans. Audits were perceived to give insight into compliance with national and international guidelines for fall prevention and to raise staff awareness, empowering them to take responsibility. Additionally, audits were considered to play an important role in increasing family awareness, especially for residents in private rooms:

“I think audits are important [and have] highlighted certain areas that we have been able to then alter” (PT1)

“I think clinical audit[ing] is always helpful, because that is a snapshot of the way we are in clinical practice […] patients, staff, doctors and physios [should] reflect [on] what is happening on their own unit, how that reflects national and international guideline[s] […] I think audit[ing] is a really valuable tool in order to improve the quality of care that we deliver” (GP).

A few discussed the importance of audit feedback:

“The audits are only as good as the feedback […] if we know there is something that we are falling down on, we can improve” (HCA, GI 2).

“Learning from the recent audit of falls. You can see patterns […] Is there a pattern of where these falls are happening? I think it’s always more concrete” (DON 2).

Fall policy, risk registers, resources. The importance of having a good fall policy, especially on procedures post-fall, was mentioned by a few. One highlighted the value of “fall packs”, which contain items for supporting staff who witness falls (e.g., “two-minute rule” assessments and flowcharts for actions post-assessment and items to support staff in safely transferring fallers), serving as reminders and offering practice-based learning approaches that enhance their ownership and responsibility.

“I think the system we have here is working [; it] is called a fall pack, so when a resident falls, there should be a bit of a fall pack near a nurse’s station […] which contains a sling for someone to be hoisted. It contains a two-minute rule and a flowchart that comes with it, and other information […] this pack just allows little quick reminders […] telling you which direction you can take your path and getting assistance with it” (PT1).

A GP discussed the importance of fall risk registers to support staff being proactive in identifying residents at high risk of falling and to demonstrate commitment to fall prevention: “I think this is important medically and legally, because, I suppose, number one, we have to do the right thing, and, number two, we have to be seen to do the right thing, because it will happen; some patients inevitably fall. We have to show that we have tried our best”.

Another described using a national awareness-raising tool with colour-coded days each month to indicate falls among residents. DON1 stated, “so, we have a red [a fall occurred] and green [no falls occurred] day, so, if we have a fall, then we initiate, then, a risk response to that […] How can we put in additional features to improve or to try and decrease the risk of further falls?”

Supportive leadership and management. Some participants highlighted the importance of leadership and supportive management, which impact staff performance in preventing falls. Leaders can embrace and facilitate creativity, implementing quality care metrics and sharing research projects. They can enhance LTCF staff responsibility and empowerment, particularly for non-management staff, by facilitating staff peer learning and encouraging staff to obtain continuous training to improve their skills.

“I think leadership is important. From the nursing staff to CNM to the director of nursing, [we] really have to drive change […] If you do not have leaders looking at pushing new ideas and pushing forward, like taking part in a research study, being involved in quality care metrics and going to study days, and then coming back and feeding that back to the staff, encouraging staff to go to training” (Ward M).

However, another participant felt that management had a negative mindset, leading to resident immobility and dependency, due to excessive focus on safety and bed capacity: “I received a very negative comment […] The problem is most of the [managers] are not interested in it. They are only concerned that the rooms are full. They do not think about pro-mobility or the quality of the care” (Therapy M).

One perceived a barrier in management hierarchies, speaking of a management to staff-on-the-ground gap and bureaucracy from middle layers. “I think, sometimes, there might be a barrier between, maybe, management and what the staff are witnessing on the floor […] but then, I think, sometimes, with the middle management […] there might be a delay in that, so sometimes, we were not sorted straightaway” (Nurse, GI 2).

Theme 3: Equipment and a safe environment

This theme included three subthemes: a safe environment, assistive equipment and supplies, and identification systems for residents at high risk of falling.

A safe environment. Several participants discussed barriers such as the building’s age and geographical location. Small rooms and non-ensuite rooms were felt to increase fall risks. Private rooms are more difficult to monitor than multi-occupancy rooms; the latter enabled supervision, and other residents could provide support, enhancing safety. Other environmental hazards included flooring, clutter, room layouts, etc. Suggested solutions included de-cluttering, lowering bed levels, providing good lighting, having appropriate furniture, etc.

Assistive equipment and supplies. Some participants mentioned appropriate equipment such as walking aids, call bells, crash mats and sensor mats. One highlighted the cost of these: “funding in relation to equipment […] I definitely think that I go back to HSE and finance” (DON1). Participants discussed sensor mats increasing staff alertness as a facilitator. However, barriers included the overuse of sensor mats; supporting residents with toileting needs were complicated; and alarms sometimes did not receive a quick response due to low staffing ratios and time constraints. The use of sensor mats was also perceived to restrict residents’ movement and make them agitated, resulting in falls. Participants suggested that sensor mats should be distributed only to those in need, not everyone, with five or fewer sensor mats in the entire unit, with staff educated on their use.

Identification systems for residents at high risk of falling. All participants agreed that colour-coding, bracelets, etc., for identifying residents at high risk of falling was not the best approach to helping staff prevent falls. It was claimed that the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA; an independent, state-appointed regulatory body) did not support these: “We do not have a display for [fall leaves [high-risk logo]] here with the residents. I think that’s good in a hospital setting […] but I do not think HIQA really embraced it” (DON2).

It was also noted that identification systems lead to staff complacency, and room-based systems can quickly get out-of-date:

“I find that a lot of the poster system and the coloured leaves system do not get changed between residents or residents moving rooms […] I think it potentially makes a nursing home look good, but the practicality of implementing it fails very quickly through complacency” (PT1).

Small sites said that all staff were already familiar with residents, so fall-risk identification systems only compromised the dignity (privacy) of residents.

Theme 4: Person-centred care

This theme focussed on providing individualised assessment and care for fall prevention, as well as relationships between staff and residents/their families. Four subthemes related to care provision: individualising care; assessing fall risks; knowing residents holistically; and promoting residents’ autonomy and independence.

Individualising care. A perceived barrier was that care was overly task-oriented. Participants considered person-centred, individualised care to be the best approach to preventing falls: “we’re really trying to push back to becoming more person-centred” (PT1).

A key activity was appropriate supervision and monitoring of residents at high risk, whether by placing them near a nurse station or visible area, providing hourly check-ups or establishing regular toileting routines: “we do move the patient or resident at high risk for it near to the nurse’s station, keep eyes on in the resident–just, like, more observation, monitoring the resident” (Nurse, GI 3). Providing supervision during movement and mobility was also indicated for residents newly admitted to LTCFs to better understand their risk factors. Supervision should be increased once they identify a unit at higher risk of falls or a resident with the potential for adverse medication effects, especially at night, within the first few hours of taking the medication. The role of 1:1 care was discussed: “in certain cases in the site, they might need to be specialised, as in a one-to-one, if they were very acutely confused and very distressed” (PT2). Another stated:

“We noticed that in our dementia unit that was at high risk of falls, and we looked at them increasing the supervision in this area, and that has less amounts of falls in that area; there was a highly active unit” (DON2).

Assessing fall risks. Using a proactive approach to identify potential risk factors for each resident was considered key to preventing falls and providing appropriate care. LTCF staff should perform ongoing/daily risk assessments:

“the important thing is identifying what is causing the falls for each individual resident; it could be different with each resident, not the same for everyone” (Nurse, GI 3).

“It is a daily assessment, ongoing assessments, actually; we are constantly assessing them” (HCA, GI 2).

They should conduct a post-fall re-assessment to identify any additional risk factors and update their care plans. Participants also discussed the importance of conducting medication reviews, including “the harmful effects of sedating medications” (GP). They noted the importance of having appropriate footwear and clothing.

Knowing residents holistically. LTCF staff believed that knowing their residents extensively can prevent falls. This includes understanding their habits, activities and usual tasks, knowing their care needs, such as their medication and side effects, as well as their dependency level and personal fall risk factors:

“knowing your resident is really key and knowing their story and knowing their likes and dislikes” (DON2).

“Knowing your residents; I mean, I have [XX] residents here with me in this particular environment, and I know them all individually. I know all their manual handling, and I know their daily care needs” (PT1).

In addition, staff must know the whole medical history of new residents in order to become familiar with them. A few participants claimed that not knowing residents hindered staff efforts to prevent falls in LTCFs, while one said that all staff were familiar with residents in their site, so it was not a barrier (Ward M).

Promoting residents’ independence and autonomy. A lack of resident activities and mobility in LTCFs was considered to increase the fall risk. There was much discussion on how improving residents’ mobility, maintaining a healthy physical condition and using “positive risk-taking” might increase falls, but restricting movement was against their human rights:

“We advocate for independence as much as possible […] our fall risk would be higher because of that” (PT1)

“We have a huge philosophy of independence and encouraging mobility, so […] we do take a lot of risks” (Therapy M)

“We are balancing risk and autonomy […] we promote patient mobility, but we have to be cognisant of the fact that by promoting mobility and independence and autonomy, they carry the risk of falls” (GP)

Involving residents and families in fall prevention. A few participants indicated a lack of safety awareness among residents and poor communication between staff and residents as barriers to preventing falls. The best way to overcome these is by educating residents and their families.

Good communication with residents was also highlighted by another participant:

“People here in nursing homes do not communicate with residents. Communication is important. You have to get consent; you have to inform them” (Therapy M).

A few participants felt that involving families in care planning may prevent falls, since they can assist in providing care, doing exercise and improving activity levels:

“Family involvement is really important, because they can help them to do the exercise when we do not have time, and they can bring them, like, proper shoes” (HCA, GI 3).

Personal resident preferences were important, as “some residents […] would not want their families involved” (Ward M).

Conversely, family involvement in care plans was viewed by some as a barrier for LTCF staff, because their expectations may be unrealistic, placing negative pressure on staff. For example, sometimes, families requested bed rails or chair rails, which can cause residents to fall or be injured. Families often hindered residents’ mobility due to fear of falling. It was also felt that it is more beneficial to involve families in fall prevention in the community than in LTCFs:

“A lot of the time, families are kind of removed from the reality of what is happening […] they just have unrealistic expectations and [tell] me what to do” (HCA, GI 2).

Furthermore, there can be conflict within families (especially in large families) due to differing preferences.

Theme 5: Staff knowledge, skills and awareness

All participants discussed this theme, across four subthemes: staff education and training; fall champions; staff motivation, self-efficacy and responsibility; and practice-based learning.

Staff education and training. A lack of knowledge about fall risk factors, especially medication knowledge, was a barrier to preventing falls. Staff were perceived to sometimes lack the skills to manage residents with dementia or cognitive impairment with unsafe behaviours. Furthermore, new staff may lack the knowledge and skills to perform their roles, which could lead to falls:

“A lot of new staff we have gotten in recent years don’t have a proper training experience, because they were trained online” (HCA, GI 1).

“New staff members are not trained, or it takes time to learn about the resident” (Therapy M).

This lack of experience in some staff increases the workload and responsibility on experienced staff, leading to double-tasking and rushed work.

Training/education for staff was key to preventing falls, particularly through increased staff awareness of risk factors: “Having education and training of frontline staff, but as part of that education and training, incorporating practical strategies” (GP). This needed to be ongoing (yearly) education, “it’s ongoing education, really important” (PT1).

Participants noted the importance of education on specific topics such as fall assessment, transfer, manual handling and dementia training. Induction training for new staff should include manual handling techniques. Some suggested it should be mandatory:

“They [should] have a week or even three days of basic training on all different types of manual handling techniques, with different examples of different residents before they even get put onto the floor” (HCA, GI 1).

One participant (PT2) noted the value of educational posters reminding staff of factors leading to falls and how to control them.

Fall champions. Fall champions were strongly supported, working as trainers for all staff, creating a fall risk register, encouraging staff to implement training while monitoring and facilitating changes in fall-prone areas:

“We have falls champions within the service; it does help to have people specifically interested and to drive change” (Ward M).

“We have the senior care assistant as a fall champion; they know, like, how to react in case of emergency […] that is really helpful” (Therapy M).

One participant claimed that fall champions are more effective than audits for staff learning through practice, as they offer real-time, continuous observation and reinforcement, while auditing is a time-based phenomenon:

“A fall champion is in real time, and a constant thing, whereas an audit is a position in time […] once a month or every three months […] it is falling flat in the time that you are not auditing. Fall champion–there’s a lot more observation around falls, and it’s more of a heightened topic when it’s constantly going on” (DON1).

Motivation, self-efficacy and responsibility. According to some, a lack of LTCF staff ownership and perceived responsibility for fall preventions are barriers. Respondents felt that it is vital to promote staff ownership and responsibility for fall prevention training, since everyone is responsible for preventing falls:

“Our training here is encouraging staff to take ownership and responsibility. We are just trying to get people to be more responsive owning it and taking responsibility” (PT1).

Practice-based learning approach. Participants discussed this educational approach as one of the most effective: learning via practice, either informally or through collaboration. Moreover, staff were felt to learn continuously, particularly after each post-fall incident. Collaborative learning was emphasised via strategies implemented daily, such as safety pauses/huddles (discussed later) and fall champions. Participants indicated that they learned from real-life stories of residents. Through these approaches, staff were made aware of residents at high risk of falling, and their knowledge and practice were continually refreshed:

“I think that is why I have the safety pauses and champions going here, because it […] keeps things to the top of the minds” (DON1).

Theme 6: Staff communication and collaborative working

This theme was discussed by all participants, across two subthemes: staff communication and teamwork; multidisciplinary approaches.

Staff communication and teamwork. Few participants reported poor communication between staff. Communication was an important facilitator in preventing falls (“communication is very important to handover” (PT1)), especially communication of changes in a resident: “daily communication on any kind of upgrade or downgrade of a patient’s, kind of, functional status” (PT2).

A safety pause is an effective strategy, as indicated by many participants, also known as a “huddle” or mini-meeting. These typically occurred after handovers, over 5–10 minutes, and were felt to enhance staff empowerment and responsibility, support peer learning, ensure patient safety and promote proactive approaches:

“We would do safety pauses here, which have been quite successful” (DON 1).

“Huddle meetings, which are just a quick five minutes, […] work quite well […] I think that the minute you empower somebody who is not management, they take it on” (PT1).

Apart from these group events, several participants noted how important it was to work as a team and to support each other by providing advice or guidance:

“We are here to just support each other in that role, and I would expect someone to tell me ‘You forgot this bit’. Then, I will acknowledge it and do it” (PT1).

Multidisciplinary approach. Collaboration between the wider MDT was considered important for all participants. They acknowledged that fall prevention needs to be multidisciplinary. However, participants considered a formal MDT meeting to be ineffective, as, typically, MDT meetings took place every 3–6 months and were deemed irrelevant unless resident assessments and conditions changed within that time frame. Furthermore, it was considered time-consuming to discuss a limited number of residents in depth, with some suggesting a safety pause could cover everything in MDT meetings more efficiently:

“A lot of time [is] wasted in meetings […] it’s just ineffective use of time” (PT1).

“We would have staff MDT meetings that we would raise certain things […] But I suppose our daily safety pauses really take that” (DON1).

To be more effective, MDT meetings should be conducted daily or weekly, while MDT “on-call consultation” or informal meetings, such as walking meetings in corridors, were perceived as effective in LTCFs for interacting and sharing information:

“A lot of our MDT conversations would happen in the corridors when we bump into people, or we would have walking meetings […] that system seems to work in this particular LTCF” (PT1).

Discussion

This study aimed to understand the barriers faced by LTCF staff and the perceived facilitators of fall prevention, which are essential to gaining insight into how fall prevention can be optimised, as staff are key to preventing falls. Although staff discussed their experience that falls were not completely preventable, and a few had pessimistic attitudes, most were motivated and positive.

Overall, LTCF staff provided a wide range of approaches (such as champions, audit feedback, practice-based learning, safety pauses, etc.). These are together described as "brief but often", as they are generally brief, targeted and used on an ongoing basis as needed, integrated into daily work. This contrasts with what staff considered onerous, i.e. fixed, sporadic “add-ons” to usual work, such as routine resident-by-resident MDT meetings; long, formal training events; or detailed but sporadic audits. As their preferred peer-learning and change-supporting activities are quick and can be easily integrated into daily routines, based on real-life scenarios encountered in units, they keep staff engaged and motivated.

Our findings indicated inadequate staffing levels, including access to therapists, poor staff-to-resident ratios, high workloads and little time. These, along with agency staff, were perceived as barriers to preventing falls. Inadequate staffing levels can increase organisational care burden [31] and impact resident safety and care [32–37]. Staffing levels inversely related to patient safety in some studies [17, 32]. According to an SR, inadequate staffing affected direct care, such as toileting assistance and monitoring [38]. The benefits of PT/OT input in preventing falls are well evidenced [39, 40]. According to the World Fall Guideline, physiotherapists are required to tailor intervention exercises and physical activity to individual residents [7]. Our results found that staffing levels are unequal across LTCF types, as consistent with an SR which found that physiotherapy staffing levels differ significantly across nursing homes [39]. The development of a quality standard for staffing levels should be examined, along with the relationships between staffing levels, care planning practices and fall rates. A framework to determine the number and skill mix of nurses and HCAs needed in each care area is being developed in Ireland, based on patient numbers and care needs. This is currently being piloted in non-acute care settings, including LTCFs [41].

Although insufficient staffing levels were perceived as a significant barrier to preventing falls in LTCFs, staff interviewed also believed that having experienced staff was key. Other studies have reported that although younger or less experienced staff members might have “fresh” knowledge and skills to prevent falls, they lack practical application and real-life experience [42], whereas fall-awareness, self-confidence and knowledge were significantly higher among those with extended experience [43]. Our linked knowledge survey of 155 respondents across 13 LTCFs showed that staff with the most clinical experience in working with older people (>11 years’ experience) scored higher in fall prevention knowledge than those with two years’ experience or less [23]. Experienced staff also have familiarity with residents and the clinical environment [44], allowing them to make appropriate clinical judgments [17]. For example, experienced staff may be more familiar with the preferences, habits and communication styles of residents, allowing them to identify potential fall risks in certain situations [32]. They may have a deeper understanding of cultural norms and the uniqueness of their facility’s culture, supporting implementation of change [17].

Our findings showed that audits and feedback are perceived as helpful approaches for reducing falls. These assess the quality of current performance and guide change towards better care, where feedback for staff can influence their clinical practice [45]. A Cochrane review found that audits and feedback increased compliance with requested practices by over 4.3% in various clinical settings, most effective when (internal) supervisors or peers delivered them [46]. A descriptive clinical audit study involving 13 LTCFs in Australia similarly reported that LTCF staff involvement in auditing processes strengthens everyone’s responsibility to translate evidence into practice [47]. Although there was no specific evidence to support audits/feedback in our SR of interventional studies [48], it is understood that audits and feedback, paired with supportive leadership, can reduce falls in a sustainable manner. Further research is needed on their particular impact within multifactorial interventions.

Our findings indicated that sensor mats are perceived as helpful for maintaining staff awareness of falls risk, but significant disadvantages include increasing resident agitation and interfering with other residents’ care. Over-using sensors may lead to falls; staff education can support their proper use, and staff performance may be improved if unnecessary alarms are de-implemented [49]. Additionally, our findings revealed that using identification systems for residents “at high risk of falling” was unhelpful in LTCFs (where most are high-risk or are well-known to staff) and contrary to promoting residents’ dignity (privacy). This contradicts a pilot study involving seven LTCFs, assessing acceptance of a fall risk management intervention involving 36 staff members [33], where a colour-coded system was reported as being easy to use and helpful, especially for rotational shifts.

Person-centred care provision may reduce falls, strengthen relationships between residents and staff and improve care outcomes [50]. It has been reported that staff are able to predict resident responses more effectively when they know them personally [51]. Communicating and educating residents, as well as respecting their independence and autonomy, and encouraging their participation in physical activity, were perceived to reduce fall incidents in the literature [52, 53]. In contrast, a small qualitative study conducted in Norway found that nursing staff in LTCFs focused more on fall prevention and protection than person-centred care approaches [42].

Involving residents and families in an effective and health-promoting manner was suggested in this study, such as families providing some personal care and improving resident activity levels, building on previous literature that families are vital to residents’ overall wellbeing [54, 55] and that active involvement of residents and families as team members can improve communication around falls [35]. However, our participants did not want to involve families in healthcare planning, as their expectations might be unrealistic, placing negative pressure on staff, with examples given of families requesting bed rails or hindering residents’ mobility due to fear of falling. A small qualitative study in LTCFs in Taiwan highlighted that fear of “blame” from families led to an over-focus on preventing falls (including the use of physical restraints) [53]. Further research with residents, their families and staff might lead to better understanding of how a balance can be struck that supports autonomy and person-centred care.

Staff education and training were perceived as vital, particularly for new staff, especially situationally-relevant and practice-based learning (PBL). Our findings reflected our previous survey results [23]. PBL is informal and reflective, contributing to professional understanding and responsibility, as decisions must be based on clinical judgment [44]. It provides opportunities to learn new skills, refine organisations and align public health systems with desired practices [56]. Within our study, fall champions and safety pauses/huddles were identified as key sources of PBL, although no evidence has indicated their effectiveness within a multifactorial approach [48].

In the workplace, fall prevention is a team effort; the main facilitating factor is staff communication [17]. This increases engagement and provides opportunities for continuous improvement of behaviour and professional development [51]. Our findings demonstrate the perceived importance of staff communication, reflecting a previous study with 41 nurses and HCAs in four LTCFs in Canada [35]. Professional collaboration is crucial for enhancing the quality of care and safety, empowering staff to take action and overcome implementation barriers, improving professional practice and health outcomes [57–59]. Our participants felt that staff teamwork and informal meetings were more effective than formal MDT meetings for reducing fall risks. Likewise, a previous study found that informal communication was perceived to play a significant role in highly collaborative, dynamic and information-rich clinical environments [51].

Strengths and limitations

We gathered rich exploratory and explanatory information within a variety of LTCF providers, both urban and rural, across many different disciplines, gaining a comprehensive understanding from various perspectives. However, certain staff categories, such as GPs, ward managers and occupational therapists, were under-represented despite invitation. One site declined participation, and one interview group had only two participants, perhaps reflecting COVID-19 pandemic related increased workloads. Overall, data saturation was reached, and sufficient numbers of key staff (nurses and HCAs) were included, from four different sites.

Conclusion

Six main themes were identified in this study as key factors in fall prevention in LTCFs: the need for sufficient staff and appropriate skill mix; fall policy, documentation and leadership; equipment and safe environments; person-centred care; staff knowledge, skills and awareness in fall prevention; and staff communication and collaborative working. A variety of approaches to integrating fall prevention into daily routines were suggested to make it more feasible and practical ("brief but often"), including rapid-cycle audits/feedback, fall champions and leaders, daily informal communication (e.g., safety pauses) and staff collaboration. Lengthy, formal MDT meetings and education sessions, and identification systems to identify residents at high risk of falling, were deemed unhelpful. All of these approaches need to be considered in fall prevention policy and practices. In addition, despite staff wariness of a potential over-focus on fall prevention versus resident autonomy, the involvement of families in fall prevention requires more exploration in terms of a potentially helpful role in supporting care and exercise.

Supporting information

S1 File Interview semi-structured guide.

(DOCX)

The authors are grateful to the directors of nursing at all four participating sites in Cork and Kerry, who allowed us to recruit participants for this study and facilitated data collection.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310139.r001
Decision Letter 0
Al-Yateem Nabeel Academic Editor
© 2024 Nabeel Al-Yateem
2024
Nabeel Al-Yateem
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
7 May 2024

PONE-D-23-40350"Brief but often": Staff perspectives on implementing falls prevention activities in long-term care facilities in older persons: a qualitative studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ALBASHA,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nabeel Al-Yateem, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Anonymous data used and analysed during this study are available from the corresponding author for non-commercial projects on reasonable request.]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I think it is very well written. Please address the following minor points.

1. Lines 238-240 suggest that having experienced staff reduces the risk of falls. Specifically, what is the difference between younger and more experienced staff? I would like to see a few sentences in the discussion to include perspectives from previous studies.

2. line573

Topic 5 is probably a mistake for topic 6.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310139.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
20 May 2024

Response to Reviewers

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have formatted all headings in the manuscript, from the abstract to the supporting information section after the reference list, according to the journal's guidelines. This includes using Heading 1, 2, 3, and so on, as specified by the formatting rules. In the results section, heading level 4 has also been included for all subthemes so as to reduce the use of italics. Additionally, we have adjusted the formatting of the manuscript’s title to comply with the journal's style requirements. Across the entire text, all changes are highlighted in red.

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

Response: Thank you for your note and for highlighting the potential citation advantage of depositing data in a repository. However, our data are qualitative and involve sensitive information and we must follow the policy of our research ethics board in UCC.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Anonymous data used and analysed during this study are available from the corresponding author for non-commercial projects on reasonable request.].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

Response: As stated above, due to the nature of the data, we are happy to provide data to others on a case-by-case basis, where we can limit or redact data as needed, to maintain confidentiality. However, we cannot have the full data set publicly available, as participants could be identified by the context of their interview responses (even though data is anonymised), which may include some overt criticism of the health service or local management structures. Participants consented to participation and were very honest in their responses based on the data being shared as we described in the PIL, and our ethics committee approved this protocol, thus we cannot now change to deposition in a repository, or inclusion within the main body or appendices of the paper, as this would be a breach of our ethics approval and participant trust.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Response: The supporting information has been added at the end of the manuscript, after the reference list (lines 946-947). On page 7, line 118, of our manuscript, we have updated that information.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: We have checked all of the references, and no papers have been retracted. We have removed all of the URLs and we have included links to web pages or resources from national government websites.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I think it is very well written. Please address the following minor points.

1. Lines 238-240 suggest that having experienced staff reduces the risk of falls. Specifically, what is the difference between younger and more experienced staff? I would like to see a few sentences in the discussion to include perspectives from previous studies.

Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have discussed this in detail on pages 31 and 32, lines 649-662.

2. line573

Topic 5 is probably a mistake for topic 6.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. This has been corrected to “Theme 6” on page 28, line 573.

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0310139.r003
Decision Letter 1
Al-Yateem Nabeel Academic Editor
© 2024 Nabeel Al-Yateem
2024
Nabeel Al-Yateem
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
7 Jun 2024

PONE-D-23-40350R1"Brief but often": Staff perspectives on implementing falls prevention activities in long-term care facilities in older persons: a qualitative studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ALBASHA,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 22 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nabeel Al-Yateem, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have responded appropriately and effectively to the comments.

No further revision required.

Reviewer #2: Clearly written and scholarly article. Only a few points need to be addressed:

1. The overall length of this manuscript is far too long - please reduce by at least 300 words.

2. The title is excessively long and complication - I had to read it several times. Please do a major revision of the title to make it clear and concise rather than long and descriptive.

3. The methods section is excessively long and I am concerned that some sections on qualitative methods seem to be very similar to the original source - please run the manuscript thorough iThenticate (or similar) and reduce text so you are not repeating other authors words so much. Just because you give a reference does not mean that you can have large chucks of very similar text.

4. The Discussion could cite and discuss the learnings from the hospital falls literature a bit more as these are highly relevant and would bring your review up to date. Some refs to consider include:

Morris, M.. (2024). Preventing hospital falls: feasibility of care workforce redesign to optimise patient falls education. Age and Ageing, 53(1), 9 pages. doi:10.1093/ageing/afad250

Montero-Odasso, M., Van Der Velde, N., Martin, F. C., Petrovic, M., Tan, M. P., Ryg, J., . . . Gac Espinola, H. (2022). World guidelines for falls prevention and management for older adults: a global initiative. Age and Ageing, 51(9). doi:10.1093/ageing/afac205

Morris, M. E.,(2022). Interventions to reduce falls in hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Age and Ageing, 51(5), 12 pages. doi:10.1093/ageing/afac077

Heng, H.,. (2020). Hospital falls prevention with patient education: a scoping review. BMC Geriatrics, 20, 12

5. Please update the ref list to include more recent refs.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310139.r004
Author response to Decision Letter 1
Submission Version2
12 Jul 2024

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: We have checked all of the references, and no papers have been retracted. We have removed all of the URLs, and we have included links to web pages or resources from national government websites. We have reviewed and removed all the old papers from the reference list except those that we considered important to our paper.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

________________________________________

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have responded appropriately and effectively to the comments.

No further revision required.

Reviewer #2: Clearly written and scholarly article. Only a few points need to be addressed:

1. The overall length of this manuscript is far too long - please reduce by at least 300 words.

Response: We have reduced the total word count of the text by around 650 words, as it originally contained 8,109 words, and now it has (7,461 words)

2. The title is excessively long and complication - I had to read it several times. Please do a major revision of the title to make it clear and concise rather than long and descriptive.

Response: We have revised the title to make it clearer

3. The methods section is excessively long and I am concerned that some sections on qualitative methods seem to be very similar to the original source - please run the manuscript thorough iThenticate (or similar) and reduce text so you are not repeating other authors words so much. Just because you give a reference does not mean that you can have large chucks of very similar text.

Response: We checked for any plagiarism and could not find any. We are confident that our manuscript is well-written and is free of plagiarism. Our methods section was written in depth, as we followed the COREQ guideline, and most of the items focused on the methods. In accordance with the guideline, we have reported all of our procedures in detail. However, we have acknowledged that our methods section was too long, as it contained 1,205 words, so we reduced it to (908 words).

4. The Discussion could cite and discuss the learnings from the hospital falls literature a bit more as these are highly relevant and would bring your review up to date. Some refs to consider include:

Morris, M.. (2024). Preventing hospital falls: feasibility of care workforce redesign to optimise patient falls education. Age and Ageing, 53(1), 9 pages. doi:10.1093/ageing/afad250

Montero-Odasso, M., Van Der Velde, N., Martin, F. C., Petrovic, M., Tan, M. P., Ryg, J., . . . Gac Espinola, H. (2022). World guidelines for falls prevention and management for older adults: a global initiative. Age and Ageing, 51(9). doi:10.1093/ageing/afac205

Morris, M. E.,(2022). Interventions to reduce falls in hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Age and Ageing, 51(5), 12 pages. doi:10.1093/ageing/afac077

Heng, H.,. (2020). Hospital falls prevention with patient education: a scoping review. BMC Geriatrics, 20, 12

Response: Thank you for the recommendations you provided. The resources are beneficial since they offer significant knowledge on the prevention of falls among older people. However, our primary objective is to prevent falls among older people residing in long-term care facilities. Consequently, we will not include all these references, as they pertain to the context of acute care (hospitals) and are not relevant to our study. We have included the SR by Morris et al as a usual reference for readers. Also, we already had referenced the World Guidelines for Falls Prevention (the second reference from Montero-Odasso et al., as you suggested) (reference number 7 (previously 47) in our manuscripts).

5. Please update the ref list to include more recent refs.

Response: Our reference list has been reviewed and updated with a few new papers, and older papers have been removed except those that are important for comparing our results for context.

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0310139.r005
Decision Letter 2
Rababa Mohammad Jamil Academic Editor
© 2024 Mohammad Jamil Rababa
2024
Mohammad Jamil Rababa
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version2
26 Aug 2024

Staff perspectives on fall prevention activities in long-term care facilities for older residents: "brief but often" staff education is key

PONE-D-23-40350R2

Dear Dr. Albasha,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohammad Jamil Rababa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I think it is well written. I think it is more compact and easier to read than previous posts. Thank you.

Reviewer #2: The revised manuscript is much improved, thank you. My only question is should you call them "residents" rather than "patients" as it is aged care.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

10.1371/journal.pone.0310139.r006
Acceptance letter
Rababa Mohammad Jamil Academic Editor
© 2024 Mohammad Jamil Rababa
2024
Mohammad Jamil Rababa
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
29 Aug 2024

PONE-D-23-40350R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ALBASHA,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mohammad Jamil Rababa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 World Health Organization. Falls [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Nov 11]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/falls
2 Rapp K , Becker C , Lamb SE , Icks A , Klenk J . Hip fractures in institutionalized elderly people: Incidence rates and excess mortality. J Bone Miner Res. 2008;23 (11 ):1825–31. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.080702 18665785
3 Lehtola S , Koistinen P , Luukinen H . Falls and injurious falls late in home-dwelling life. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2006;42 :217–24. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2005.07.002 16125808
4 Health Service Executive. Strategy to Prevent Falls and Fractures in Ireland’s Ageing Population. Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations [Internet]. 2008. Available from: www.hse.ie
5 Rubenstein LZ . Falls in older people: Epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for prevention. Age Ageing. 2006;35 (SUPPL.2 ):ii37–41. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afl084 16926202
6 Cameron ID , Dyer SM , Panagoda CE , Murray GR , Hill KD , Cumming RG , et al . Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities and hospitals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;9 (9 ). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005465.pub4 30191554
7 Montero-Odasso M , Van Der Velde N , Martin FC , Petrovic M , Tan MP , Ryg J , et al . World guidelines for falls prevention and management for older adults: a global initiative. Age Ageing. 2022 Sep 1;51 (9 ):afac205. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afac205 36178003
8 Vlaeyen E , Coussement J , Leysens G , Van Der Elst E , Delbaere K , Cambier D , et al . Characteristics and effectiveness of fall prevention programs in nursing homes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63 (2 ):211–21. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13254 25641225
9 World Health Organization. WHO Global Report on Falls Prevention in Older Age. [Internet]. Community Health. 2007. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241563536
10 Deandrea S , Bravi F , Turati F , Lucenteforte E , La Vecchia C , Negri E . Risk factors for falls in older people in nursing homes and hospitals. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2013;56 (3 ):407–15. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2012.12.006 23294998
11 Dhargave P , Sendhilkumar R . Prevalence of risk factors for falls among elderly people living in long-term care homes. Journal of Clinical Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2016 Sep 1;7 :99–103.
12 Baixinho CL , Madeira C , Alves S , Henriques MA , Dixe M dos A . Falls and Preventive Practices among Institutionalized Older People. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jul 1;19(13). doi: 10.3390/ijerph19137577 35805247
13 Gulka HJ , Patel V , Arora T , McArthur C , Iaboni A . Efficacy and Generalizability of Falls Prevention Interventions in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21 (8 ):1024–1035.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2019.11.012 31982358
14 Francis-Coad J , Etherton-Beer C , Burton E , Naseri C , Hill AM . Effectiveness of complex falls prevention interventions in residential aged care settings: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2018;16 (4 ):973–1002. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003485 29634516
15 Dahlke SA , Hunter KF , Negrin K . Nursing practice with hospitalised older people: Safety and harm. Int J Older People Nurs. 2019 Mar 1;14 (1 ):e12220. doi: 10.1111/opn.12220 30628753
16 Morris ME , Webster K , Jones C , Hill AM , Haines T , Mcphail S , et al . Interventions to reduce falls in hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing. 2022;51 :1–12. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afac077 35524748
17 De La Cuesta-Benjumea C , Lidón-Cerezuela B , Abad-Corpa E , Meseguer-Liza C , Arredondo-González CP . Managing and keeping control: A qualitative synthesis of nursing and care staff strategies to prevent older people from falling. J Adv Nurs. 2021 Jul 1;77 (7 ):3008–19. doi: 10.1111/jan.14794 33608944
18 Kuhnow J , Hoben M , Weeks LE , Barber B , Estabrooks CA . Factors Associated with Falls in Canadian Long Term Care Homes: a Retrospective Cohort Study. Can Geriatr J. 2022 Dec 1;25 (4 ):328–35. doi: 10.5770/cgj.25.623 36505912
19 Barry S , Fhallúin M , Thomas S , Harnett PJ , Burke S . Implementing Integrated Care in Practice—Learning from MDTs Driving the Integrated Care Programme for Older Persons in Ireland. Int J Integr Care. 2021;21 (1 ):15. doi: 10.5334/ijic.4682 33776604
20 Konnyu KJ , Mccleary N , Presseau J , Ivers NM , Grimshaw JM . Behavior Change Techniques in Continuing Professional Development. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2020 Jun 5;40 (4 ):268–73. doi: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000319 33284178
21 Vlaeyen E , Stas J , Leysens G , Van der Elst E , Janssens E , Dejaeger E , et al . Implementation of fall prevention in residential care facilities: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;70 :110–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.02.002 28242505
22 Jancey J , Wold C , Meade R , Sweeney R , Davison E , Leavy J . A balanced approach to falls prevention: Application in the real world. Health Promot J Austr. 2018 Aug 1;29 (2 ):199–203. doi: 10.1002/hpja.42 29573015
23 Albasha N , McCullagh R , Cornally N , Timmons S . Staff knowledge, attitudes and confidence levels for fall preventions in older person long-term care facilities: a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2023 Sep 25;23 (1 ):595. doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-04323-0 37749541
24 Albasha N , Curtin C , McCullagh R , Cornally N , Timmons S . Staff’s insights into fall prevention solutions in long-term care facilities: a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatrics 2023 23:1. 2023 Nov 13;23 (1 ):738. doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-04435-7 37957577
25 Tong A , Sainsbury P , Craig J . Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19 (6 ):349–57. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 17872937
26 Braun V , Clarke V . Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019 Aug 8;11 (4 ):589–97.
27 Braun V , Clarke V . Conceptual and Design Thinking for Thematic Analysis. Qualitative Psychology. 2021 May 13;9 (1 ):3–26.
28 Braun V , Clarke V . One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qual Res Psychol. 2021;18 (3 ):328–52.
29 Nowell LS , Norris JM , White DE , Moules NJ . Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017 Sep 28;16 (1 ).
30 Lincoln YS , Guba EG . Naturalistic Inquiry Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 1989.
31 Gusdal AK , Johansson-Pajala RM , Arkkukangas M , Ekholm A , Zander V . Preventing Falls and Malnutrition among Older Adults in Municipal Residential Care in Sweden: A Registry Study. SAGE Open Nurs. 2021;7 :23779608211026160. doi: 10.1177/23779608211026161 34286078
32 Fonad E , Burnard P , Emami A . Shielding or caging? Healthcare staffs’ views on fall risk and protection in Stockholm. Int J Older People Nurs. 2008;3 (1 ):46–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-3743.2007.00106.x 20925889
33 Butler M , Kerse N , Coggan C . The experiences of staff concerning the introduction and impact of a fall prevention intervention in aged care facilities: A qualitative study. The Australasian Journal on Ageing. 2003;22 (4 ):218–21.
34 Hang JA , Francis-Coad J , Burro B , Nobre D , Hill AM . Assessing knowledge, motivation and perceptions about falls prevention among care staff in a residential aged care setting. Geriatr Nurs. 2016;37 (6 ):464–9. doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2016.06.019 27666465
35 Wagner LM , Damianakis T , Mafrici N , Robinson-Holt K . Falls communication patterns among nursing staff working in long-term care settings. Clin Nurs Res. 2010;19 (3 ):311–26. doi: 10.1177/1054773810370995 20601640
36 Chapman LJ , Newenhouse AC . Nursing home staff perception of a falls management intervention. WMJ. 2013;112 (4 ):162–8. 24734405
37 Francis-Coad J , Hang JA , Etherton-Beer C , Ellis A , Hill AM . Evaluation of care staff knowledge, confidence, motivation and opportunity for preventing falls in residential aged care settings: A cross-sectional survey. Int J Older People Nurs. 2019;14 (2 ):e12224. doi: 10.1111/opn.12224 30811899
38 Clemens S , Wodchis W , McGilton K , McGrail K , McMahon M . The relationship between quality and staffing in long-term care: A systematic review of the literature 2008–2020. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021 Oct 1;122 :104036. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104036 34419730
39 Brett L , Noblet T , Jorgensen M , Georgiou A . The use of physiotherapy in nursing homes internationally: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2019;14 (7 ):e0219488. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219488 31295297
40 Sterke S , Nascimento da Cunha AP , Oomen H , Voogt L , Goumans M . Physiotherapy in nursing homes. A qualitative study of physiotherapists’ views and experiences. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21 (1 ):150. doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02080-6 33648440
41 gov.ie—gov.ie—Framework for Safe Nurse Staffing and Skill Mix [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 27]. Available from: https://www.gov.ie
42 Clancy A , Mahler M . Nursing staffs’ attentiveness to older adults falling in residential care—an interview study. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25 (9–10 ):1405–15. doi: 10.1111/jocn.13240 27009497
43 Struksnes S , Bachrach-Lindström M , Hall-Lord ML , Slaasletten R , Johansson I . The nursing staff’s opinion of falls among older persons with dementia. A cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs. 2011 Jun 20;10 :13. doi: 10.1186/1472-6955-10-13 21689441
44 Page M , Pool L , Crick DM , Leahy R . Empowerment of learning and knowledge: Appreciating professional development for registered nurses in aged residential care. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020;43 :102703. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102703 32014706
45 Fraser KD , O’Rourke HM , Baylon MAB , Boström AM , Sales AE . Unregulated provider perceptions of audit and feedback reports in long-term care: Cross-sectional survey findings from a quality improvement intervention. BMC Geriatr. 2013;13 :15. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-13-15 23402382
46 Ivers N , Jamtvedt G , Flottorp S , Young JM , Odgaard-Jensen J , French SD , et al . Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6 ):CD000259. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3 22696318
47 Francis-Coad J , Etherton-Beer C , Bulsara C , Nobre D , Hill AM . Using a community of practice to evaluate falls prevention activity in a residential aged care organisation: A clinical audit. Aust Health Rev. 2017;41 (1 ):13–8. doi: 10.1071/AH15189 26982888
48 Albasha N , Ahern L , O’mahony L , McCullagh R , Cornally N , Mchugh S , et al . Implementation strategies to support fall prevention interventions in long-term care facilities for older persons: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2023;23 (1 ):47. doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-03738-z 36698065
49 Vandenberg AE , Beijnum B jan Van , Overdevest VGP , Capezuti E , Science C , Signals B . US and Dutch nurse experiences with fall prevention technology within nursing home environment and workflow: A qualitative study. Geriatr Nurs. 2017;38 (4 ):276–82. doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2016.11.005 27956058
50 Abusalem S , Polivka B , Coty MB , Crawford TN , Furman CD , Alaradi M . The relationship between culture of safety and rate of adverse events in long-term care facilities. J Patient Saf. 2021;17 (4 ):299–304. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000587 30889049
51 Xue TM , Colón-Emeric CS , Herndon L , Hecker EJ , Berry SD , Little MO , et al . Strengthening Resident, Proxy, and Staff Engagement in Injury Prevention in Skilled Nursing Facilities. Gerontologist. 2022;62 (8 ):1112–23. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnab193 34971374
52 Baixinho CL , Dixe M dos A . Practices and behaviors of professionals after falls in institutionalized elderly with and without cognitive decline. Dement Neuropsychol. 2020;14 (1 ):62–8. doi: 10.1590/1980-57642020dn14-010010 32206200
53 Wu SC , Wu SF , Huang HC . Nurses’ attitudes towards physical activity care among older people. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22 (11–12 ):1653–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04260.x 22998679
54 Carman KL , Dardess P , Maurer M , Sofaer S , Adams K , Bechtel C , et al . Patient and family engagement: A framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff. 2013;32 (2 ):223–31. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1133 23381514
55 Lepore M , Scales K , Anderson RA , Porter K , Thach T , McConnell E , et al . Person-directed care planning in nursing homes: A scoping review. Int J Older People Nurs. 2018 Dec 1;13 (4 ):e12212. doi: 10.1111/opn.12212 30358099
56 Fixsen D , Scott V , Blase K , Naoom S , Wagar L . When evidence is not enough: The challenge of implementing fall prevention strategies. J Safety Res. 2011 Dec 1;42 (6 ):419–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2011.10.002 22152258
57 Arling PA , Abrahamson K , Miech EJ , Inui TS , Arling G . Communication and effectiveness in a US nursing home quality-improvement collaborative. Nurs Health Sci. 2014;16 (3 ):291–7. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12098 24256620
58 Andrews S , Lea E , Haines T , Nitz J , Haralambous B , Moore K , et al . Reducing staff isolation and developing evidence-informed practice in the aged care environment through an action research approach to falls prevention. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2012;35 (1 ):3–13. doi: 10.1097/ANS.0b013e3182433b27 22228387
59 Reeves S , Pelone F , Harrison R , Goldman J , Zwarenstein M . Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 22;6 (6 ):CD000072. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000072.pub3 28639262
