↓ Skip to main content

Use of fall risk increasing drugs in residents of retirement villages: a pilot study of long term care and retirement home residents in Ontario, Canada

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Use of fall risk increasing drugs in residents of retirement villages: a pilot study of long term care and retirement home residents in Ontario, Canada
Published in
BMC Research Notes, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1557-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Rojas-Fernandez, Farzan Dadfar, Andrea Wong, Susan G. Brown

Abstract

Falls continue to be a problem for older people in long-term care (LTC) and retirement home (RH) settings and are associated with significant morbidity and health care use. Fall-risk increasing drugs (FRIDs) are known to increase fall risk and represent modifiable risk factors. There are limited data regarding the use of FRIDs in contemporary LTC and RH settings, and it has not been well documented to what extent medication regimens are reviewed and modified for those who have sustained falls. The objective of this study is to characterize medication related fall risk factors in LTC and RH residents and on-going use of medications known to increase fall risk. Retrospective chart review of residents aged >65 who sustained one or more falls living in LTC or RH settings. 105 residents who fell one or more times during 2009-2010 were identified with a mean age of 89 years, a mean of nine scheduled medications and seven diagnoses, and 83 % were women. Residents in LTC were ostensibly at higher risk for falls relative to those in RH settings as suggested by higher proportion of residents with multiple falls, multiple comorbidities, comorbidities that increase fall risk and visual impairment. Post fall injuries were sustained by 42 % of residents, and residents in RH sustained more injuries relative to LTC residents (47 vs 34 %). Use of FRIDs such as benzodiazepines, antipsychotic, antidepressant and various antihypertensive drugs was common in the present sample. No medication regimen changes were noted in the 6-month post fall period. The present study documented common use FRIDs by LTC and RH residents with multiple falls. These potentially modifiable falls risk factors are not being adequately addressed in contemporary practice, demonstrating that there is much room for improvement with regards to the safe and appropriate use of medications in LTC and RH residents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 13%
Engineering 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 20 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,239,950
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,954
of 4,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,672
of 279,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#81
of 193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 193 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.