Differing approaches to falls and fracture prevention between Australia and Colombia

Figures & data

Table 1 Comparison of organization, administration, client, and intervention characteristics

	Australia	Colombia
Organization
Date of commencement	October 2008	April 2001
Base setting	University acute hospital	University subacute hospital
Frequency/duration of each clinic session	Weekly/4 hours	Weekly/4 hours
Referral (main source)	General practitioners	Specialists
Administration
Mean number of new attendances per year	155	48
Staffing structure	Multidisciplinary	Multidisciplinary
Clinical staff (number)	9	4
Time for initial assessment (mean)	2 hours	2 hours
Waiting list for service (time)	2 weeks	4 weeks
Attrition (%)	25	20
Client characteristics
Age, mean (years)	82 ± 12	74 ± 7.7
Female (%)	68	75
Eligibility (main criteria)	Falls and fractures	Falls and dizziness
Interventions
Type of intervention	Multifactorial	Multifactorial
Most common type of intervention prescribed	vitamin D supplementation	Individual supervised gentle balance exercise
Outcomes for follow-up	Recurrent falls, fractures	Relief of symptoms, falls percentage, injury falls

Figure 1 Comparative flow diagram for processing falls and fracture clinics in Australia and Colombia.

Note: Specific interventions for each program are separated into columns.
Abbreviations: 3D, three-dimensional; ADL, activities of daily living; ALCOVE, Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders; AUS, Australia; BMI, body mass index; COL, Colombia; FES-I, Falls Efficacy Scale-International; GDS, Geriatric Depression Scale; GPs, general practitioners; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; MNA, Mini Nutritional Assessment; POMA, performance oriented mobility assessment; SPPB, short physical performance battery.