Background: falls and fall-related injuries are common in older adults, have negative effects on functional independence and quality of life and are associated with increased morbidity, mortality and health related costs. Current guidelines are inconsistent, with no up-to-date, globally applicable ones present. Objectives: to create a set of evidence- and expert consensus-based falls prevention and management recommendations applicable to older adults for use by healthcare and other professionals that consider: (i) a person-centred approach that includes the perspectives of older adults with lived experience, caregivers and other stakeholders; (ii) gaps in previous guidelines; (iii) recent developments in e-health and (iv) implementation across locations with limited access to resources such as low- and middle-income countries. Methods: a steering committee and a worldwide multidisciplinary group of experts and stakeholders, including older adults, were assembled. Geriatrics and gerontological societies were represented. Using a modified Delphi process, recommendations from 11 topic-specific working groups (WGs), 10 ad-hoc WGs and a WG dealing with the perspectives of older adults were reviewed and refined. The final recommendations were determined by voting. Recommendations: all older adults should be advised on falls prevention and physical activity. Opportunistic case finding for falls risk is recommended for community-dwelling older adults. Those considered at high risk should be offered a comprehensive multifactorial falls risk assessment with a view to co-design and implement personalised multidomain interventions. Other recommendations cover details of assessment and intervention components and combinations, and recommendations for specific settings and populations. Conclusions: the core set of recommendations provided will require flexible implementation strategies that consider both local context and resources.

In patients with prior hip fracture (HFx), little is known about time frame and risk factors of second HFx, as well as the ensuing mortality. The aim of the study was to elucidate the incidence of second HFx and subsequent mortality. All 169,145 patients with a first HFx in Denmark during 1977–2001 were followed for up to 25 yr and compared with the background population. Data on fractures, vital status, comorbidity, redeemed prescriptions, and socio-demographic variables were retrieved from national registers. Median follow-up was 3.8 yr, corresponding to 1,041,177 patient-years. A total of 27,834 patients had a second HFx. The cumulative incidence was 9% after 1 yr and 20% after 5 yr, being significantly higher than expected (2% and 12%, respectively; p < 0.05). The RR of second HFx was 2.2 (95% CI: 2.0–2.5) at 1 yr and did not normalize until 15 yr (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 1.0–1.02). Risk factors for a second HFx were female sex (HR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.32–1.40), age (HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.60–1.76 in patients >85 yr), alcoholism (HR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.51–1.72), any prior fracture (HR = 1.08, 95%CI :1.04–1.11), and living alone (HR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04–1.09). Both sexes had higher mortality at 1 and 5 yr after a second HFx compared with the background population (men—1 yr: 27% versus 9%, p < 0.05; 5 yr: 64% versus 40%, p < 0.05; women—1 yr: 21% versus 10%, p < 0.05; 5 yr: 58% versus 41%, p < 0.05). Patients with HFx are at 2-fold risk of further HFx and the subsequent mortality is highly increased. We propose that programs for secondary prevention should be developed and tested.

Background: Healthcare professionals are often reluctant to deprescribe fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs). Lack of knowledge and skills form a significant barrier and furthermore, there is no consensus on which medications are considered as FRIDs despite several systematic reviews. To support clinicians in the management of FRIDs and to facilitate the deprescribing process, STOPPFall (Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions in older adults with high fall risk) and a deprescribing tool were developed by a European expert group. Methods: STOPPFall was created by two facilitators based on evidence from recent meta-analyses and national fall prevention guidelines in Europe. Twenty-four panellists chose their level of agreement on a Likert scale with the items in the STOPPFall in three Delphi panel rounds. A threshold of 70% was selected for consensus a priori. The panellists were asked whether some agents are more fall-risk-increasing than others within the same pharmacological class. In an additional questionnaire, panellists were asked in which cases deprescribing of FRIDs should be considered and how it should be performed. Results: The panellists agreed on 14 medication classes to be included in the STOPPFall. They were mostly psychotropic medications. The panellists indicated 18 differences between pharmacological subclasses with regard to fall-risk-increasing properties. Practical deprescribing guidance was developed for STOPPFall medication classes. Conclusion: STOPPFall was created using an expert Delphi consensus process and combined with a practical deprescribing tool designed to optimise medication review. The effectiveness of these tools in falls prevention should be further evaluated in intervention studies.

Background: Along with an aging population, the field of robot technology in rehabilitation is expanding. As new technologies develop, it is important to test these clinically before implementation. To assess the possibilities of undertaking a future randomized controlled trial (RCT), the aim of this study was to pilot test and investigate the feasibility of a newly developed passive mobilization robot device in geriatric medicine patients. Methods: We used a robot to perform passive mobilization for all recruited patients while they were lying in bed. Inclusion criteria include the following: ≥ 65 years of age, able to walk before hospitalization, and not capable of walking > 2 m at the first day of hospitalization. Exclusion criteria include the following: known moderate/severe dementia, unstable fractures (back, pelvis, or legs), high intracranial pressure, pressure ulcers/risk of developing pressure ulcers due to fragile skin, positive Confusion and Assessment Method (CAM) score, not able to understand Danish, and medical instability. A mixed-methods approach, including structured interviews for patients and relatives, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews for the staff, and observations in the clinic were used as data collection methods. A 6-week pilot test preceded the feasibility study to test study design, safety, interview guide, and setting, and to become familiar with the robot. Results: The pilot test included 13 patients, made the staff confident in the use of the robot, and led to the correction of the interview guide. In the feasibility study, 177 patients were screened, 14 patients (four men, nine women) included, and 13 completed the intervention (median [IQR] age 86 [82–92] years). Overall, the robot was easy to use during passive mobilization and fully accepted by patients and relatives. Staff, however, found the robot difficult to maneuver. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Use of robot technology in passive mobilization of older patients was feasible and well accepted by patients, relatives, and staff. Technical and workflow-related issues, as well as the robot not performing active mobilization, affects the launch of a RCT and thereby its implementation in geriatric medicine patients.