Home › Research › Clinical safety
Reducing the cost of inpatient falls: An ERM perspective
Rebecca O. Bailey, Shannon L. Delchamps. Journal of Healthcare Risk Management, 2025-05-22
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Traditional fall prevention activities are not effective in preventing inpatient falls or injuries from falls. A knowledge of the five steps of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides risk professionals with opportunities to apply them on an organization-wide basis to existing risks. The authors demonstrate how to apply the five steps of ERM to the common risk/patient safety issue of fall injury prevention. The authors completed a comprehensive literature review and identified predictors of injuries from falls. A comprehensive framework emerged which assists in predicting and preventing falls with injury in the inpatient setting. In combination of two or more, the following have been shown to predict injuries after falls: the use of oral anticoagulants, being born female, dementia, polypharmacy, the use of Fall Risk Increasing Drugs, urologic co-morbidities, and HIV positive status. When the ERM Process is applied to injury from falls, a Strategic Risk Response is created which assists the risk professional with application of the ERM process. Shifting focus from fall prevention to fall injury prevention, with the application of the ERM Process, creates value for the patient and the organization, and contributes to program success and sustainability.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bailey, R. O., & Delchamps, S. L. (2025). Reducing the cost of inpatient falls: An ERM perspective. Journal of Healthcare Risk Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhrm.70003
Vancouver
Bailey RO, Delchamps SL. Reducing the cost of inpatient falls: An ERM perspective. Journal of Healthcare Risk Management. 2025. doi:10.1002/jhrm.70003. PMID: 40405571.
BibTeX
@article{bailey2025-40405571,
author = {Bailey, Rebecca O. and Delchamps, Shannon L.},
title = {{Reducing the cost of inpatient falls: An ERM perspective}},
journal = {Journal of Healthcare Risk Management},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1002/jhrm.70003},
pmid = {40405571},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/jhrm.70003}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The authors completed a comprehensive literature review and identified predictors of injuries from falls.
- A comprehensive framework emerged which assists in predicting and preventing falls with injury in the inpatient setting.
- In combination of two or more, the following have been shown to predict injuries after falls: the use of oral anticoagulants, being born female, dementia, polypharmacy, the use of Fall Risk Increasing Drugs, urologic co-morbidities, and HIV positive status.
- When the ERM Process is applied to injury from falls, a Strategic Risk Response is created which assists the risk professional with application of the ERM process.
- Shifting focus from fall prevention to fall injury prevention, with the application of the ERM Process, creates value for the patient and the organization, and contributes to program success and sustainability.
Why it matters
This paper describes applying an Enterprise Risk Management framework to inpatient fall injury prevention and lists dementia among factors that, in combination, predict injuries after falls. It is about preventing fall injuries in hospital, not about treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 29/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 28 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 29 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Healthcare Risk Management) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Journal of Healthcare Risk Management: journal h-index 29 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 1 / 7 | Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 2 / 6 | Cited 2.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Shannon L. Delchamps holds only 1 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 0 / 3 | Piedmont Atlanta Hospital: institution h-index 188 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40405571) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 28 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 29 out of 100. |
| Total | 29 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Clinical safety
Also in Clinical safety
96 studies in the library are filed under Clinical safety with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Clinical safety hub.