Search

Background: Using an inpatient fall risk assessment tool helps categorize patients into risk groups which can then be targeted with fall prevention strategies. While potentially important in preventing patient injury, fall risk assessment may unintentionally lead to reduced mobility among hospitalized patients. Here we examined the relationship between fall risk assessment and ambulatory status among hospitalized patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutively admitted adult patients (n = 48,271) to a quaternary urban hospital that provides care for patients of broad socioeconomic and demographic backgrounds. Non‐ambulatory status, the primary outcome, was defined as a median Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility <6 (i.e., patient walks less than 10 steps) throughout hospitalization. The primary exposure variable was the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT) category (Low, Moderate, High). The capacity to ambulate was assessed using the Activity Measure for Post‐Acute Care (AM‐PAC). Multivariable regression analysis controlled for clinical demographics, JHFRAT items, AM‐PAC, comorbidity count, and length of stay. Results: 8% of patients at low risk for falls were non‐ambulatory, compared to 25% and 54% of patients at moderate and high risk for falls, respectively. Patients categorized as high risk and moderate risk for falls were 4.6 (95% CI: 3.9–5.5) and 2.6 (95% CI: 2.4–2.9) times more likely to be non‐ambulatory compared to patients categorized as low risk, respectively. For patients with high ambulatory potential (AM‐PAC 18–24), those categorized as high risk for falls were 4.3 (95% CI: 3.5–5.3) times more likely to be non‐ambulatory compared to patients categorized as low risk. Conclusions: Patients categorized into higher fall risk groups had decreased mobility throughout their hospitalization, even when they had the functional capacity to ambulate. [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]

Background. The lack of common language among interprofessional inpatient clinical teams is an important barrier to achieving inpatient mobilization. In The Johns Hopkins Hospital, the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) Inpatient Mobility Short Form (IMSF), also called "6-Clicks," and the Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility (JH-HLM) are part of routine clinical practice. The measurement characteristics of these tools when used by both nurses and physical therapists for interprofessional communication or assessment are unknown. Objective. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the reliability and minimal detectable change of AM-PAC IMSF and JH-HLM when completed by nurses and physical therapists and to evaluate the construct validity of both measures when used by nurses. Design. A prospective evaluation of a convenience sample was used. Methods. The test-retest reliability and the interrater reliability of AM-PAC IMSF and JH-HLM for inpatients in the neuroscience department (n = 118) of an academic medical center were evaluated. Each participant was independently scored twice by a team of 2 nurses and 1 physical therapist; a total of 4 physical therapists and 8 nurses participated in reliability testing. In a separate inpatient study protocol (n = 69), construct validity was evaluated via an assessment of convergent validity with other measures of function (grip strength, Katz Activities of Daily Living Scale, 2-minute walk test, 5-times sit-to-stand test) used by 5 nurses. Results. The test-retest reliability values (intraclass correlation coefficients) for physical therapists and nurses were 0.91 and 0.97, respectively, for AM-PAC IMSF and 0.94 and 0.95, respectively, for JH-HLM. The interrater reliability values (intraclass correlation coef- ficients) between physical therapists and nurses were 0.96 for AM-PAC IMSF and 0.99 for JH-HLM. Construct validity (Spearman correlations) ranged from 0.25 between JH-HLM and right-hand grip strength to 0.80 between AM-PAC IMSF and the Katz Activities of Daily Living Scale. Limitations. The results were obtained from inpatients in the neuroscience department of a single hospital. Conclusions. The AM-PAC IMSF and JH-HLM had excellent interrater reliability and test-retest reliability for both physical therapists and nurses. The evaluation of convergent validity suggested that AM-PAC IMSF and JH-HLM measured constructs of patient mobility and physical functioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hoyer EH, Brotman DJ, Chan KS, Needham DM: Barriers to early mobility of hospitalized general medicine patients: survey development and results. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 201 5 ;94 :3 0 4 -3 1 2. Objective: Functional status decline commonly accompanies hospitalization making patients vulnerable to complications. Such decline can be mitigated through hospital-based early mobility programs. Success in implementing patient mobility quality improvement processes requires evaluating providers' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Design: A cross-sectional, self-administered survey in two different hospital settings was completed by 1 20 nurses and physical and occupational therapists (rehabilitation therapists, 38; nurses, 82) from six general medicine units. The survey was developed using published guidelines, literature review, and provider meetings and refined through pilot testing. Psychometric properties were assessed, and regression analyses were conducted to examine barriers to early mobility by hospital site, provider discipline, and years of experience. Results: Internal consistency reliability, item consistency, and discriminant validity psychometric characteristics were acceptable. In multivariable regression analysis, overall perceived barriers were similar between the two hospitals (P = 0.25) and significantly higher for staff with less experience (P = 0.02) and for nurses vs. rehabilitation therapists (P < 0.001 ).The survey identified specific barriers common to both nurses and rehabilitation therapists and other barriers that were discipline specific. Conclusions: This novel survey identified important barriers to mobilizing medical inpatients that were similar across two hospital settings. These results can assist with the implementation of quality improvement projects for increasing early hospital-based patient mobility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]