Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older people: a systematic overview. The SENATOR Project ONTOP Series

Background: Falls are common events in older people, which cause considerable morbidity and mortality. Non-pharmacological interventions are an important approach to prevent falls. There are a large number of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions, whose evidence needs to be synthesized in order to facilitate evidence-based clinical decision making. Objectives: To systematically examine reviews and meta-analyses that evaluated non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older adults in the community, care facilities and hospitals. Methods: We searched the electronic databases Pubmed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDRO and TRIP from January 2009 to March 2015, for systematic reviews that included at least one comparative study, evaluating any non-pharmacological intervention, to prevent falls amongst older adults. The quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR and ProFaNE taxonomy was used to organize the interventions. Results: Fifty-nine systematic reviews were identified which consisted of single, multiple and multi-factorial non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older people. The most frequent ProFaNE defined interventions were exercises either alone or combined with other interventions, followed by environment/assistive technology interventions comprising environmental modifications, assistive and protective aids, staff education and vision assessment/correction. Knowledge was the third principle class of interventions as patient education. Exercise and multifactorial interventions were the most effective treatments to reduce falls in older adults, although not all types of exercise were equally effective in all subjects and in all settings. Effective exercise programs combined balance and strength training. Reviews with a higher AMSTAR score were more likely to contain more primary studies, to be updated and to perform meta-analysis. Conclusions: The aim of this overview of reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older people in different settings, is to support clinicians and other healthcare workers with clinical decision-making by providing a comprehensive perspective of findings.

Relevance of anatomy to medical education and clinical practice: perspectives of medical students, clinicians, and educators

Introduction: Against a backdrop of ever-changing diagnostic and treatment modalities, stakeholder perceptions (medical students, clinicians, anatomy educators) are crucial for the design of an anatomy curriculum which fulfils the criteria required for safe medical practice. This study compared perceptions of students, practising clinicians, and anatomy educators with respect to the relevance of anatomy education to medicine. Methods: A quantitative survey was administered to undergraduate entry (n = 352) and graduate entry students (n = 219) at two Irish medical schools, recently graduated Irish clinicians (n = 146), and anatomy educators based in Irish and British medical schools (n = 30). Areas addressed included the association of anatomy with medical education and clinical practice, mode of instruction, and curriculum duration. Results: Graduate-entry students were less likely to associate anatomy with the development of professionalism, teamwork skills, or improved awareness of ethics in medicine. Clinicians highlighted the challenge of tailoring anatomy education to increase student readiness to function effectively in a clinical role. Anatomy educators indicated dissatisfaction with the time available for anatomy within medical curricula, and were equivocal about whether curriculum content should be responsive to societal feedback. Conclusions: The group differences identified in the current study highlight areas and requirements which medical education curriculum developers should be sensitive to when designing anatomy courses.

Personalized absolute benefit of statin treatment for primary or secondary prevention of vascular disease in individual elderly patients

Objective: To estimate the absolute treatment effect of statin therapy on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; myocardial infarction, stroke and vascular death) for the individual patient aged C70 years. Methods: Prediction models for MACE were derived in patients aged C70 years with (n = 2550) and without (n = 3253) vascular disease from the ‘‘PROspective Study of Pravastatin in Elderly at Risk’’ (PROSPER) trial and validated in the ‘‘Secondary Manifestations of ARTerial disease’’ (SMART) cohort study (n = 1442) and the ‘‘Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Lipid Lowering Arm’’ (ASCOT-LLA) trial (n = 1893), respectively, using competing risk analysis. Prespecified predictors were various clinical characteristics including statin treatment. Individual absolute risk reductions (ARRs) for MACE in 5 and 10 years were estimated by subtracting ontreatment from off-treatment risk. Results: Individual ARRs were higher in elderly patients with vascular disease [5-year ARRs: median 5.1 %, interquartile range (IQR) 4.0–6.2 %, 10-year ARRs: median 7.8 %, IQR 6.8–8.6 %] than in patients without vascular disease (5-year ARRs: median 1.7 %, IQR 1.3–2.1 %, 10-year ARRs: 2.9 %, IQR 2.3–3.6 %). Ninetyeight percent of patients with vascular disease had a 5-year ARR C2.0 %, compared to 31 % of patients without vascular disease. Conclusions: With a multivariable prediction model the absolute treatment effect of a statin on MACE for individual elderly patients with and without vascular disease can be quantified. Because of high ARRs, treating all patients is more beneficial than prediction-based treatment for secondary prevention of MACE. For primary prevention of MACE, the prediction model can be used to identify those patients who benefit meaningfully from statin therapy.