Occupational therapy-led environmental assessment and modification-A quantitative evaluation of a pilot implementation study in a regional/rural setting.

The study was a single-site pilot in a rural area, which may have experienced less disruption from the pandemic, limiting generalisability to metropolitan or highly disrupted services. One investigator was based at the site and had a pre-existing relationship with the service, which may have positively influenced uptake. Staff survey data were unpaired, meaning different therapists responded at baseline and follow-up, which diluted the ability to detect individual changes. The study evaluated implementation process, not clinical effectiveness; it did not measure whether the intervention actually reduced falls. Structured observations during implementation were conducted by peers rather than external researchers due to pandemic restrictions. The stringent fall risk criteria used in the study excluded some clients who were referred for fall prevention or had sustained injurious falls, potentially underestimating the need for the intervention.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Darling Downs Hospital Foundation.

Do not interpret the high penetration and fidelity rates as evidence that the intervention reduced falls. This was an implementation study that measured process outcomes, not clinical effectiveness, so it does not demonstrate that the home safety assessments improved patient safety or functional outcomes.