Search

Aim: Characterize the relationship between patient ambulatory status and in‐hospital call bell use. Background: Although call bells are frequently used by patients to request help, the relationship between physical functioning and call bell use has not been evaluated. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of 944 neuroscience patients hospitalized in a large academic urban medical centre between April 1, 2014 and August 1, 2014. We conducted multiple linear regression analyses with number of daily call bells from each patient as the primary outcome and patients' average ambulation status as the primary exposure variable. Results: The mean number of daily call bell requests for all patients was 6.9 (6.1), for ambulatory patients 5.6 (4.8), and for non‐ambulatory patients, it was 7.7 (6.6). Compared with non‐ambulatory patients, ambulatory patients had a mean reduction in call bell use by 1.7 (95% CI 2.5 to −0.93, p <.001) calls per day. In a post hoc analysis, patients who could walk >250 feet had 5 fewer daily call bells than patients who were able to perform in‐bed mobility. Conclusion: Ambulatory patients use their call bells less frequently than non‐ambulatory patients. Implications for Nursing Management: Frequent use of call bells by non‐ambulatory patients can place additional demands on nursing staff; patient mobility status should be considered in nurse workload/patient assignment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To characterize resources to safely mobilize different types of hospitalized patients. Background: Current approaches to determine nurse–patient ratios do not always include information regarding the specific demands of patients who require extra resources to mobilize. Workflows must be designed with knowledge of resource requirements to integrate patient mobility into the daily nursing team care plan. Methods: Nurse‐led mobility sessions were evaluated on two adult hospital units, which consisted of nurse–patient encounters focused on patient mobility only. The resources assessed for each session were time‐to‐mobilize patient, time‐to‐document, need for additional staff support, and the need for assistive devices. Mobility sessions were also categorized by patient ambulation status, level of mobility limitations (low, medium and high) and diagnosis. Results: In 212 total mobility sessions, the median time‐to‐mobilize and time‐to‐document were 7.75 and 1.27 min, respectively. Additional staff support was required for 87% and 92% of patients with medium and high mobility limitations, respectively. All patients with low mobility limitations ambulated, and only 14% required additional staff. Ambulating patients with high mobility limitations was the most time‐intensive (median 12.55 min). Ambulating stroke patients required one additional staff and an assistive device in 92% and 69% of the sessions, respectively. Conclusion: This study describes the resources associated with mobilizing inpatients with different levels of mobility impairments and diagnoses. Implications for Nursing Management: These results could assist nursing management with facilitating appropriate daily nurse–patient ratios and justify the need for assistive devices and staff support to safely mobilize patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]