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]

Objective. Physical function is associated with important outcomes, yet there is often a lack of continuity in routine assessment. The purpose of this study was to determine data elements and instruments for longitudinal measurement of physical function in routine care among patients transitioning from acute care hospital setting to home with home health care. Methods. A 4-round modified Delphi process was conducted with 13 participants with expertise in physical therapy, health care administration, health services research, physiatry/medicine, and health informatics. Three anonymous rounds identified important and feasible data elements. A fourth in-person round finalized the recommended list of individual data elements. Next, 2 focus groups independently provided additional perspectives from other stakeholders. Results. Response rates were 100% for online rounds 1, 3, and 4 and 92% for round 2. In round 1, 9 domains were identified: physical function, participation, adverse events, behavioral/emotional health, social support, cognition, complexity of illness/disease burden, health care utilization, and demographics. Following the fourth round, 27 individual data elements were recommended. Of these, 20 (74%) are "administrative" and available from most hospital electronic medical records. Additional focus groups confirmed these selections and provided input on standardizing collection methods. A website has been developed to share these results and invite other health care systems to participate in future data sharing of these identified data elements. Conclusion. A modified Delphi consensus process was used to identify critical data elements to track changes in patient physical function in routine care as they transition from acute hospital to home with home health. Impact. Expert consensus on comprehensive and feasible measurement of physical function in routine care provides health care professionals and institutions with guidance in establishing discrete medical records data that can improve patient care, discharge decisions, and future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]