• Key supplier to the NHS
  • Trusted by 19,000+ clinicians
  • Rated 4.8/5 by customers

Deconditioning and falls: the cycle that makes both worse

Written by Tristan Hulbert, Vivid.Care. Author of “The Healthcare Professional’s Complete Guide to Specialist Seating Assessments”. Last updated: 3 August 2026.

Keeping a patient in bed to stop them falling produces the weakness, poor balance and orthostatic intolerance that make them more likely to fall. It’s a genuine cycle, and one of the few places in hospital care where the instinctive safety response makes the outcome worse. The alternative isn’t accepting more falls – it’s positive risk taking, with supervised graded activity, stable seating and safe transfers, so strength gets maintained instead of lost.

The cycle

  1. A patient is admitted, often after a fall, and gets assessed as being at risk of falling.
  2. The response is to reduce movement: bed rails, a low bed, a bed alarm, close observation and, in practice, an expectation that they stay put.
  3. Reduced movement causes muscle loss, deteriorating balance and orthostatic intolerance. Kortebein and colleagues (JAMA 2007) measured around 0.95kg of lean leg mass lost over ten days of bed rest in healthy older adults.
  4. The patient is now weaker and less steady than they were on admission, so the falls risk assessment scores higher.
  5. That higher score justifies more restriction.

Round it goes, and each turn makes the eventual fall more likely and its consequences worse, because by then the patient has less muscle and less bone.

Orthostatic intolerance

This is the mechanism most often missed. Bed rest degrades the baroreceptor reflexes that hold your blood pressure up when you stand, and it does so within days. A patient who has been supine for a week may be genuinely dizzy the first time they stand, not because of their medication or their diagnosis, but because of the bed rest.

Which means the first mobilisation after a long spell in bed is the highest-risk one, and that creates an incentive to defer it again. Graded, frequent, supervised upright time is what prevents that, and sitting out is the safest way to deliver it.

Two responses

Restriction, or positive risk taking

Both responses accept that the patient might fall. Only one of them does anything about why.

Patient encouraged to stay in bed and use the call bell

A daily out-of-bed period as the default, with a documented reason when it doesn't happen

Mobility becomes a therapy referral rather than a daily expectation

Graded, supervised upright time so orthostatic tolerance is maintained

Falls risk score rises as strength falls, which justifies more restriction

Stable seating with supportive arms at a safe sit-to-stand height

Orthostatic intolerance develops, making the first stand genuinely dangerous

Proper footwear with backs, and glasses within reach

Muscle and bone are lost, so an eventual fall causes more harm

Toileting plans that anticipate the need rather than waiting for the call bell

Confidence drops, in the patient and in the staff helping them

A falls policy that records prevented deconditioning as well as prevented falls

The fall often happens anyway, unsupervised, at night, on the way to the toilet

Organisational backing, so a fall during supervised mobilisation isn't treated as a failure of judgement

What positive risk taking actually requires

It’s easy to write and hard to do, because the incentives point the other way. A fall is a recorded, investigated, attributable incident. Deconditioning is none of those things. A ward that prevents fifteen falls by keeping people in bed looks better on every dashboard than a ward that prevented twelve falls and sent four more people home walking.

Changing that needs three things, and the first two are organisational rather than clinical.

  • A falls policy that names deconditioning as a competing harm. If the policy only counts falls, staff will only optimise for falls, and they’re behaving perfectly rationally in doing so.
  • Organisational backing after an incident. If a fall during supervised mobilisation leaves the member of staff feeling personally blamed, nobody will mobilise anyone for a month afterwards. This is the single biggest factor in whether a positive risk policy survives contact with reality.
  • Equipment that reduces the actual risk. Covered below, and it’s the smallest of the three.

Where seating fits

Modest and specific, and worth stating precisely.

What seating can and cannot contribute to falls risk, with the basis stated for each line.
Seating factor What it addresses Basis
Stable chair with a safe footprint Tipping when a patient loads the front edge or pushes off an armrest to stand. Practice. Basic safety requirement. Ask suppliers for stability test evidence.
Seat height that allows a safe sit-to-stand A seat that’s too low makes standing impossible or unsafe; too high leaves feet unsupported and the patient sliding. Practice. Standard seating assessment principle.
Supportive arms with a grippable front edge Gives the patient something to push through, and gives assisting staff a predictable technique. Practice. Falls prevention and safe transfer practice.
Correct seat depth and back angle Sliding and slipping forwards out of the chair, which is a recognised in-chair fall mechanism as well as a shear risk. Practice and inference. Postural seating principle; the falls link is reasonable inference rather than trial evidence.
A chair the patient will tolerate Patients who find the chair uncomfortable ask to go back to bed, which puts them back on the deconditioning limb of the cycle. Inference. Discomfort is a documented barrier to sitting out (Brown, Journal of Hospital Medicine 2007). The onward link to falls is inference.

What seating doesn’t do is prevent falls. No chair prevents falls, and it’s worth being suspicious of anyone who tells you otherwise. The full set of questions to ask any supplier is on ward chair specification.

Related reading

For the national picture on inpatient falls, see our NHS inpatient falls report.

Common questions

Deconditioning and falls: common questions

Does keeping patients in bed prevent falls?

Not across an admission. Bed rest causes muscle loss, deteriorating balance and orthostatic intolerance, all of which push falls risk up. Kortebein and colleagues (JAMA 2007) measured around 0.95kg of lean leg mass lost over ten days of bed rest in healthy older adults. Restriction may reduce falls on a given shift while making the patient more likely to fall, and more likely to be badly hurt by it, later in the stay and after discharge.

Sources

  1. Kortebein P, Ferrando A, Lombeida J, Wolfe R, Evans WJ. Effect of 10 days of bed rest on skeletal muscle in healthy older adults. JAMA, 2007;297(16):1772-1774.
  2. Brown CJ, Williams BR, Woodby LL, Davis LL, Allman RM. Barriers to mobility during hospitalization from the perspectives of older patients, their nurses and physicians. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 2007;2(5):305-313.
  3. Brown CJ, Redden DT, Flood KL, Allman RM. The underrecognized epidemic of low mobility during hospitalization of older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2009;57(9):1660-1665.
  4. British Geriatrics Society. Deconditioning Hub and “Sit up, get dressed, keep moving”, 2017 onwards.
icon_bluestone98