Skip to main content
Download PDF

Examining the impact of a health report card on follow through with fall risk recommendations: an observational study

BMC Geriatrics volume 24, Article number: 166 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Increasing older adults’ awareness of their personal fall risk factors may increase their engagement in fall prevention. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of and participant satisfaction with a comprehensive occupational therapy fall risk screening and recommendations for evidence-based fall prevention strategies based on personalized fall risk results for community-dwelling older adults.

Methods

Cognitively normal participants (Clinical Dementia Rating = 0) were recruited from an ongoing longitudinal study of memory and aging. Participants completed 2 annual in-home visits, fall risk questionnaires, and 12 months of fall monitoring between visits. Participants received a health report card with their fall risks and tailored recommendations in 6 domains. Participants completed follow-up questions at their next annual in-home visit about the fall risk recommendations and their satisfaction with receiving their fall risk results.

Results

Two hundred five participants completed 2 annual visits and 12 months of fall monitoring. Of the 6 domains of recommendations provided, participants were most likely to follow through with getting an annual eye exam and reviewing their medications with their doctor or pharmacist. Older adults who fell were significantly more likely to receive recommendations for finding fall prevention classes (p = 0.01) and having a doctor or pharmacist review their medications (p = 0.004). The majority of participants were satisfied receiving their fall risk results (92%) and believed it to be beneficial (90%), though few participants shared their results with their doctor (20%).

Conclusions

An occupational therapy fall risk screening and tailored recommendations were not sufficient to encourage follow through with fall risk recommendations. Older adults may benefit from additional support and encouragement to reduce their fall risk. Additional research is needed to examine awareness of fall risks and follow through with fall risk recommendations among community-dwelling older adults.

Peer Review reports

Background

Nearly 30% of older adults in the United States experience a fall each year [1]. Falls are the leading cause of injury among older adults, including sprains, fractures, and head injuries [2]. Regardless of injury, older adults who have fallen may also experience psychological or emotional consequences, such as fear of falling and decreased self-efficacy [3]. Fall risk factors are multifactorial, and treatment should be tailored to individual risk profiles. To address the detrimental effect of falls on an increasingly older population, fall prevention programs and strategies have been developed to promote safety and allow older adults to remain in their homes [4, 5]. Evidence-based approaches to address fall risk factors may include exercise programs to improve balance and strength [4, 5], removing hazards in the home [5, 6], and reducing the number of prescription medications [4]. Home assessments provided by an occupational therapist, including the evidence-based strategies listed above, can reduce the risk of falling and may encourage older adults to make changes to promote safe aging in place [7].

Despite the importance of reducing one’s risk of falling, older adults may not participate in fall prevention programs and studies for several reasons. Some older adults may believe that falls are a consequence of normal aging, that they are not personally at risk, or that reporting a fall may imply functional decline [8, 9]. For example, less than half of older adults report discussing previous falls with their primary care physician [10, 11]. Additionally, some older adults at risk for falling may overestimate their abilities or may not believe that they would benefit from a fall prevention program [12]. Other barriers may include older adults’ lack of time, access, or finances to engage in fall prevention programs and studies [13, 14]. Thus, efforts are needed to increase older adults’ awareness of fall risks and the importance of fall prevention even if they have not experienced a fall yet.

One strategy to increase older adults’ participation in fall prevention is to provide them with a fall risk screening and their personalized results [15]. This has the potential to increase older adults’ awareness of their own risk, encourage engagement in fall prevention behaviors, and allows them to share results with health care providers to initiate discussions about fall risks and possible approaches for preventing falls [15]. Therefore, we developed a health report card (HRC) of evidence-based fall risks in 6 domains to inform participants of their personal fall risks and tailored recommendations that may reduce their risk of falling [16]. The HRC may encourage older adults to make changes to prevent future falls and has potential to increase participant satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of and participant satisfaction with a comprehensive occupational therapy (OT) fall risk screening and recommendations for evidence-based fall prevention strategies for community-dwelling older adults.

Methods

Participants and study design

This analysis utilized data from an ongoing longitudinal cohort study with community-dwelling older adults from the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center (ADRC) at Washington University in St. Louis, further details of which have been published previously [16]. Briefly, participants who met inclusion criteria were approached by Knight ADRC staff at the time of their annual clinical assessment. Interested individuals were referred to a study team member who provided information on the longitudinal study and obtained written informed consent in the home prior to collection of study data. The purpose of this longitudinal study was to identify whether functional mobility and falls could serve as preclinical markers for Alzheimer disease [16]. Participants included in the longitudinal cohort study were: (1) ≥ 65 years old and (2) cognitively normal (Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR] [17] score of 0) at their most recent clinical visit at the Knight ADRC. Participants completed annual in-home screenings of fall risk factors with an OT practitioner and monthly fall monitoring for 4 years and received the fall risk screening and recommendations as part of a research participation incentive.

This retrospective analysis includes all participants enrolled in the longitudinal study who completed 2 annual in-home screenings and 12 months of fall monitoring between these home visits. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Washington University in St. Louis (reference number: 201807135).

Annual home visit and fall risk screening

Participants received annual in-home screenings of fall risk factors, including balance and gait, functional mobility, sensation, and environmental hazards. Participants completed annual questionnaires of additional fall risk factors, such as fear of falling, via electronic survey or telephone interview. After the annual questionnaires and in-home visit were completed, participants received an HRC by mail that included information about their fall risks, explanation of scoring for measures used to evaluate fall risks, and tailored recommendations to reduce their risk of falling. Participants with one or more fall risks identified in the OT fall risk screening were encouraged to share their HRC with their primary care physician to initiate conversations about their personal fall risks and possible preventative measures.

During the next annual in-home visit, participants reported whether they had followed up on recommendations in each applicable domain over the past year. They also rated their satisfaction with receiving their fall risk results, the degree to which they found this information beneficial, and whether they had shared their fall risk results with their primary care physician.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all in-person research activity was paused for nearly 15 months. Participants who did not have an in-home visit during their second year in the study completed follow-up questions about their Year 1 recommendations during their Year 3 home visit. Participants who enrolled during the COVID-19 pandemic completed follow-up questions during their Year 2 home visit.

Fall risk measures and recommendations

Participants received HRCs that included their fall risk results based on the OT screening and tailored recommendations for reducing their risk of falling. Tailored recommendations and the rationale for the 6 domains are as follows: (1) impairments in balance and lower extremity strength have been associated with gait deviations and increased risk of falling [5, 18]; (2) low vision and impaired contrast sensitivity increase the risk of experiencing one or multiple falls [18]; (3) fear of falling is associated with increased risk of falling and limited activity participation [3, 18]; (4) removal of home hazards reduces the rate of falls in older adults [6]; (5) impaired lower extremity sensation increases one’s risk of falling [19]; and (6) polypharmacy and taking 4 or more prescription medications can increase one’s risk of experiencing one or multiple falls [3, 20]. Follow through with recommendations was measured by the number of recommendations the participant followed out of the total number of recommendations provided. Table 1 displays a summary of fall risk domains, measures, established cutoff scores [3], and recommendations. Participants whose scores fell below cutoff values for each fall risk domain were classified as not having a fall risk and did not receive tailored recommendations.

Table 1 Recommendations and clinical cutoff scores for fall risk domains
Full size table

Fall monitoring

Falls were defined as an unexpected event in which the individual came to rest on the ground, floor, or a lower level [19]. Participants were encouraged to record falls using a daily calendar-journal [21]. Falls were reported to study staff via automated phone call or e-mail survey monthly [21]. Participants received an incentive via gift card for each month of fall reporting [21]. If a participant reported a fall, a trained rater followed up via phone to collect additional details about the fall. Falls included in this analysis were reported for the 12 months following the participant’s Year 1 home visit.

Statistical analysis

Type of recommendation and follow through were compared for individuals who fell versus those who did not using Chi-square tests (see Supplementary Table 1). Significance level was set at 0.05 for between-group comparisons of participants who fell versus those who did not fall. A frequency analysis was used to examine satisfaction with receiving the HRC and circumstances of reported falls. Data were analyzed using R v. 4.2.1 [22].

Results

Two hundred five participants completed 2 in-home visits and 12 months of fall monitoring as part of the ongoing study and were included in this analysis. Participants reported follow through with Year 1 recommendations at Year 2 (n = 57) and Year 3 (n = 148). Participants were, on average, 74.8 years old and had 16.6 years of education, and were majority female (54.1%) and White (87.7%). A total of 256 falls were recorded in the 12 months following the Year 1 home visit, with a median of 1 fall (Table 2). All participants were cognitively normal at baseline (CDR = 0).

Table 2 Participant characteristics at Year 1
Full size table

A frequency analysis of recommendation type and follow through was assessed for individuals who fell versus those who did not (Table 3). Very few participants (n = 16; 8%) did not have any fall risks in the 6 domains and did not receive any recommendations. The 127 older adults who fell received 359 recommendations, while the 78 older adults who did not fall received 179 recommendations. Individuals who fell were significantly more likely to receive recommendations to discuss fall prevention classes with their doctor (fear of falling; p = 0.01) and have a doctor or pharmacist review their medications (medication; p = 0.004) than those who did not fall. They were also more likely to receive recommendations to remove hazards in their home (home hazards) and have their lower extremity sensation tested (sensation), though these between-group differences were not statistically significant. There were no differences in follow through with recommendations between those who did and did not fall.

Table 3 Types of recommendations and follow through with recommendations for fallers and non-fallers
Full size table

Overall, participants reported high levels of satisfaction with receiving their fall risk results via the HRC (93%; n = 186). The majority (90%; n = 180) found receiving their fall risk results to be beneficial. Few participants (20%; n = 40) shared their fall risk results with their doctor as recommended (see Supplementary Table 2).

Discussion

This study examined the impact of providing tailored recommendations based on results from an OT fall risk screening, follow through with those recommendations to reduce the risk of falling, and satisfaction with receiving personalized information about fall risk in community-dwelling older adults. Overall, most participants received fall risk recommendations to reduce home hazards, check their lower extremity sensation, or have a medication review; they were most likely to follow through with getting an annual eye exam or reviewing medications with a health care provider. Participants who fell were significantly more likely to receive recommendations for discussing fall prevention programs with their doctor and reviewing their medications than those who did not fall. Those who fell were also more likely to receive recommendations to remove hazards in their home, though the difference was not significant. Of the recommendations provided, participants were most likely to follow through with recommendations for medication (82%), home hazards (57%), and fear of falling (23%). Overall, older adults who fell followed through with 61% of recommendations compared to 55% for those who did not fall. These results suggest that providing fall risk results and tailored recommendations alone is not sufficient to encourage follow through with recommendations, effect change for engaging in fall prevention behaviors, or reduce fall risks in 1 year. Future fall prevention efforts for older adults who have a history of falls should address home modification and hazard removal delivered by an occupational therapist [7], implementation of fall prevention classes, medication review, and continued encouragement to ensure follow through with fall prevention strategies, including notifying their primary care physician directly about any falls [13].

The majority of participants were satisfied with receiving their fall risk results in the HRC, demonstrating acceptability of using the HRC to convey fall risk information and tailored recommendations among community-dwelling older adults. However, only 20% of participants reported sharing their fall risk results with their doctor. It is unclear why the participants did not share the results. It is possible that their doctors are already aware of the risks, or participants may believe that falls are a normal part of aging or that they are not personally at risk for falls [8, 9]. Over 60% of participants in this study experienced one or more falls, which is greater than the approximately 30% of older adults who report falling each year based on annual national surveying [1]. It is possible that this higher prevalence of falls may be attributed to greater accuracy and enhanced recall through monthly fall monitoring compared to annual fall monitoring [23, 24]. Providing additional opportunities for older adults to report falls may result in increased awareness of their own fall risks and allow for provision of fall prevention education, programs, and studies to decrease falls and increase participation among community-dwelling older adults.

This study has several limitations that impact interpretation of the results. First, the majority of participants were female and White, which limits the generalizability of these findings. Additionally, this study did not ascertain existing behaviors related to recommendations provided; participants already may have been aware of their fall risks related to these 6 domains or engaging in regular fall prevention behaviors, such as getting annual eye exams or reviewing medications with health care providers, prior to this study. Therefore, follow through with recommendations cannot be ascribed solely to the HRC. Additional information is needed to compare existing versus post-HRC follow through with fall risk recommendations. While most participants found receiving their fall risk information from the HRC to be beneficial, it is possible that the low rate of sharing HRCs with primary care physicians could be due to the length of time between receiving the HRC and follow-up with a study team member 1 year later. To address this concern, future studies could investigate the impact of more frequent contact with participants or providing reminders to follow through with HRC recommendations. Additional opportunities to report follow through, as well as information about the reasons for not following through with the recommendations, may provide valuable information for addressing fall risks and enhancing follow through with recommendations in the future. Last, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some participants may have been limited in their ability to follow through with the recommendations or may not have remembered whether they followed through with the recommendations because of the extended time between Year 1 and follow-up.

Future studies should utilize rigorous designs, such as randomized controlled trials, to test the efficacy of the HRC as a potential intervention for reducing falls and promoting utilization of fall prevention behaviors. Additionally, inquiries should ascertain older adults’ reasons for lack of follow through with fall risk recommendations in the HRC as well as provide reminders for follow through between visits. More frequent follow-up regarding fall risk recommendations may impact one’s decision to take action for engaging in fall prevention behaviors. It may also be beneficial to quantify any interactions with medical providers regarding fall risks, as this may influence participants’ decisions to follow through with recommendations. Future studies utilizing the HRC should examine the relationship between acting on recommendations and the time to experiencing a fall to further examine the role of the HRC recommendations and follow through in reducing risk of falls. Finally, future work should investigate supplemental information to the HRC that may improve its effectiveness in reducing falls risk, such as referrals for fall prevention treatment with an OT provider.

Conclusions

These findings highlight the importance of addressing fall prevention strategies for at-risk older adults. Older adults may benefit from additional support and encouragement when receiving fall risk recommendations, especially reducing home hazards, providing fall prevention classes, and promoting exercises to improve balance and gait. Additional research is needed to examine follow through and awareness of fall risks among community-dwelling older adults.

Data availability

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ADRC:

Alzheimer Disease Research Center

CDR:

Clinical Dementia Rating

HRC:

Health report card

OT:

Occupational therapy

References

  1. Bergen G, Stevens MR, Burns ER. Falls and fall injuries among adults aged ≥ 65 years - United States, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(37):993–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Moreland B, Kakara R, Henry A. Trends in nonfatal falls and fall-related injuries among adults aged ≥ 65 years - United States, 2012–2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(27):875–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lusardi MM, Fritz S, Middleton A, Allison L, Wingood M, Phillips E, et al. Determining risk of falls in community dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis using posttest probability. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2017;40(1):1–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Panel on Prevention of Falls in Older Persons, American Geriatrics Society, British Geriatrics Society. Summary of the updated American geriatrics society/british geriatrics society clinical practice guideline for prevention of falls in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(1):148–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gillespie LD, Robertson MC, Gillespie WJ, Sherrington C, Gates S, Clemson LM et al. Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(9).

  6. Stark S, Keglovits M, Somerville E, Hu Y-L, Barker A, Sykora D, et al. Home hazard removal to reduce falls among community-dwelling older adults: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(8):e2122044–e.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Cumming RG, Thomas M, Szonyi G, Salkeld G, O’Neill E, Westbury C, et al. Home visits by an occupational therapist for assessment and modification of environmental hazards: a randomized trial of falls prevention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47(12):1397–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. van Rhyn B, Barwick A. Health practitioners’ perceptions of falls and fall prevention in older people: a metasynthesis. Qual Health Res. 2019;29(1):69–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stevens JA, Noonan RK, Rubenstein LZ. Older adult fall prevention: perceptions, beliefs, and behaviors. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2010;4(1):16–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stevens JA, Ballesteros MF, Mack KA, Rudd RA, DeCaro E, Adler G. Gender differences in seeking care for falls in the aged medicare population. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(1):59–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoffman GJ, Ha J, Alexander NB, Langa KM, Tinetti M, Min LC. Underreporting of fall injuries of older adults: implications for wellness visit fall risk screening. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66(6):1195–200.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Calhoun R, Meischke H, Hammerback K, Bohl A, Poe P, Williams B, et al. Older adults’ perceptions of clinical fall prevention programs: a qualitative study. J Aging Res. 2011;2011:867341.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Vincenzo JL, Patton SK, Lefler LL, McElfish PA, Wei J, Curran GM. A qualitative study of older adults’ facilitators, barriers, and cues to action to engage in falls prevention using health belief model constructs. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2022;99:104610.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tzeng HM, Okpalauwaekwe U, Lyons EJ. Barriers and facilitators to older adults participating in fall-prevention strategies after transitioning home from acute hospitalization: a scoping review. Clin Interv Aging. 2020;15:971–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ong MF, Soh KL, Saimon R, Wai MW, Mortell M, Soh KG. Fall prevention education to reduce fall risk among community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review. J Nurs Manag. 2021;29(8):2674–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Bollinger RM, Keleman A, Thompson R, Westerhaus E, Fagan AM, Benzinger TL, et al. Falls: a marker of preclinical alzheimer disease: a cohort study protocol. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e050820.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Morris JC. The clinical dementia rating (cdr): current version and scoring rules. Neurology. 1993;43(11):2412–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Deandrea S, Lucenteforte E, Bravi F, Foschi R, La Vecchia C, Negri E. Risk factors for falls in community-dwelling older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiology. 2010;21(5):658–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tinetti ME, Speechley M, Ginter SF. Risk factors for falls among elderly persons living in the community. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(26):1701–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dhalwani NN, Fahami R, Sathanapally H, Seidu S, Davies MJ, Khunti K. Association between polypharmacy and falls in older adults: a longitudinal study from England. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10):e016358.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Stark SL, Silianoff TJ, Kim HL, Conte JW, Morris JC. Tailored calendar journals to ascertain falls among older adults. OTJR (Thorofare N J). 2015;35(1):53–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ganz DA, Higashi T, Rubenstein LZ. Monitoring falls in cohort studies of community-dwelling older people: effect of the recall interval. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(12):2190–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lamb SE, Jørstad-Stein EC, Hauer K, Becker C, Europe obotPoFN, Group OC. Development of a common outcome data set for fall injury prevention trials: the prevention of falls network europe consensus. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(9):1618–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tinetti ME. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1986;34(2):119–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rikli RE, Jones CJ. Functional fitness normative scores for community-residing older adults, ages 60–94. J Aging Phys Act. 1999;7(2):162–81.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lin TP, Rigby H, Adler JS, Hentz JG, Balcer LJ, Galetta SL, et al. Abnormal visual contrast acuity in parkinson’s disease. J Parkinsons Dis. 2015;5(1):125–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kempen GI, Yardley L, van Haastregt JC, Zijlstra GA, Beyer N, Hauer K, et al. The short fes-i: a shortened version of the falls efficacy scale-international to assess fear of falling. Age Ageing. 2008;37(1):45–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Clemson L, Fitzgerald MH, Heard R. Content validity of an assessment tool to identify home fall hazards: the westmead home safety assessment. Br J Occup Ther. 1999;62(4):171–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kästenbauer T, Sauseng S, Brath H, Abrahamian H, Irsigler K. The value of the rydel-seiffer tuning fork as a predictor of diabetic polyneuropathy compared with a neurothesiometer. Diabet Med. 2004;21(6):563–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge our participants for their contributions, which made this study possible.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute on Aging [1 R01 AG057680-01A1]; the Healthy Aging and Senile Dementia Program Project [P01 AG03991]; the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center [P30 AG066444]; Antecedent Biomarkers for AD: the Adult Children Study [P01 AG026276]; the Paula C. and Rodger O. Riney Fund; the Daniel J. Brennan MD Fund; and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [TL1 TR002344]. The funders had no role in the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program in Occupational Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, 4444 Forest Park Ave, 63110, St Louis, MO, Box 8505, USA

    Abigail L. Kehrer-Dunlap, Rebecca M. Bollinger, Brianna Holden & Susan Stark

  2. Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Beau M. Ances

Authors
  1. Abigail L. Kehrer-Dunlap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca M. Bollinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brianna Holden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Beau M. Ances
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Susan Stark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RMB, BMA, and SS contributed to conceptualization, methodology, and project administration. BMA and SS acquired funding to support this study. AKD, RMB, BMA, and SS contributed to formal analysis. AKD, RMB, and BH conducted data visualization and writing of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Stark.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Washington University in St. Louis (reference number: 201807135). All participants provided written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1: Supplementary Table 1.

Chi-square test of recommendations between fallers and non-fallers. Supplementary Table 2. Satisfaction with receiving fall risk results

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kehrer-Dunlap, A.L., Bollinger, R.M., Holden, B. et al. Examining the impact of a health report card on follow through with fall risk recommendations: an observational study. BMC Geriatr 24, 166 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04686-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04686-y

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us