We aimed to gain insight into the barriers and facilitators to fall risk screening of older adults visiting the hospital as experienced by patients and healthcare professionals, and to examine the differences between chronic- and acute-care patients. We invited patients (≥ 70 years) attending the nephrology and emergency department to participate in the screening. Patients and their healthcare professionals were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire based on the “Barriers and Facilitators Assessment Instrument”. Differences in barriers and facilitators between acute- and chronic-care patients were examined with chi-square tests. A total of 216 patients were screened, and 103 completed the questionnaire. They considered many factors as facilitators, and none as barriers. Acute-care patients were more positive than chronic-care patients about healthcare worker characteristics, such as knowledge and skills. After screening, patients were more open to receiving advice regarding fall prevention. The 36 healthcare professionals considered program characteristics to be facilitators and mainly factors regarding healthcare worker characteristics as barriers to implementation. For patients, the outpatient setting seemed to be a good place to be screened for fall risk. Healthcare professionals also suggested that program characteristics could enhance implementation. However, healthcare professionals’ mindsets and the changing of routines are barriers that have to be addressed first.

Background: The effectiveness of implementing fall prevention interventions (FPI) among hospitalised adults exhibits variability. Our review explored implementation strategies for FPIs, how these strategies are operationalised and their impact on fall rates and adherence. Methods: Databases were searched up to October 2024 for studies reporting the implementation of FPIs in hospitalised adults. Studies were eligible if they reported at least one implementation strategy, reported a fall rate per 1000 patient days and had a control group. Implementation strategies were classified using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, and operationalised based on the prerequisites of Proctor. Results: The implementation strategies from the 48 included studies could all be categorised in the existing ERIC strategies. Almost all studies (96%) used at least one implementation strategy from the ‘train and educate stakeholders’ domain. The second-most used domain was ‘develop stakeholder relationships’. The median number of implementation strategies per study was 6 (IQR 4–9). None of the studies reported all prerequisites per individual strategy, we found a median number of prerequisites per strategy of 2 (IQR 1–3). The action was discerned for all implementation strategies, since this was how we identified the implementation strategies. The actor was identified in 47% of the strategies, while all other prerequisites were reported less frequently. After the implementation of FPIs, the median decline in fall rate was 0.9 (IQR -1.8–.3) per 1000 patient days. Across the 17 studies that measured adherence, the median adherence rate to the FPIs was 65% (IQR 29–87). Conclusion: This review emphasises that the documented strategies for implementing FPIs do not provide adequate details in their reporting. This, in turn, hinders clinicians and researchers from optimally guiding their quality improvement projects. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018091173.