Search

Importance: Identifying cognitive impairment in adults in acute care is essential so that providers can address functional deficits and plan for safe discharge. Occupational therapy practitioners play an essential role in screening for, evaluating, and treating cognitive impairment. Objective: To test and compare the psychometrics and feasibility of three cognitive screens and select the ideal screen for use in acute care. Design: Prospective mixed methods. Setting: Acute care hospital. Participants: Fifty adults. Outcomes and Measures: We examined the interrater reliability, administration time, and usability of the Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool Short Form (BCAT–SF), the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care "6-Clicks" Applied Cognitive Inpatient Short Form (AM-PAC ACISF), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). We compared the construct validity, sensitivity, and specificity of the BCAT–SF and AM-PAC ACISF with those of the MoCA. Results: Interrater reliability was good to excellent; ICCs were.98 for the MoCA,.97 for the BCAT–SF, and.86 for the AM-PAC ACISF. The BCAT–SF and the AM-PAC ACISF both had 100% sensitivity, and specificity was 74% for the BCAT–SF and 98% for the AM-PAC ACISF. The optimal cutoff score for cognitive impairment on the AM-PAC ACISF was <22. Administration time of the AM-PAC ACISF (1.0 min) was significantly less than that of the BCAT–SF (5.0 min) and the MoCA (13.3 min; p <.001). Conclusions and Relevance: Each screen demonstrated acceptable reliability and construct validity. The AM-PAC ACISF had the optimum mix of performance and feasibility for the fast-paced acute care setting. What This Article Adds: Early identification of cognitive impairment using the AM-PAC ACISF can allow for timely occupational therapy intervention in acute care settings. This study tested and compared the psychometrics and feasibility of three cognitive screens and concludes that each tool demonstrated acceptable reliability and construct validity in acute care hospitals, with the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care "6-Clicks" Applied Cognitive Inpatient Short Form (AM-PAC ACISF) overall having the optimum mix of performance and feasibility. [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]

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]

Use patient demographic and clinical characteristics at admission and time-varying in-hospital measures of patient mobility to predict patient post-acute care (PAC) discharge. Retrospective cohort analysis of electronic medical records. Patients admitted to the two participating Hospitals from November 2016 through December 2019 with ≥72 hours in a general medicine service. Discharge location (PAC vs home) was the primary outcome, and 2 time-varying measures of patient mobility, Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) Mobility "6-clicks" and Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility, were the primary predictors. Other predictors included demographic and clinical characteristics. For each day of hospitalization, we predicted discharge to PAC using the demographic and clinical characteristics and most recent mobility data within a random forest (RF) for survival, longitudinal, and multivariate (RF-SLAM) data. A regression tree for the daily predicted probabilities of discharge to PAC was constructed to represent a global summary of the RF. There were 23,090 total patients and compared to PAC, those discharged home were younger (64 vs 71), had shorter length of stay (5 vs 8 days), higher AM-PAC at admission (43 vs 32), and average AM-PAC throughout hospitalization (45 vs 35). AM-PAC was the most important predictor, followed by age, and whether the patient lives alone. The area under the hospital day–specific receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.76 to 0.79 during the first 5 days. The global summary tree explained 75% of the variation in predicted probabilities for PAC from the RF. Sensitivity (75%), specificity (70%), and accuracy (72%) were maximized at a PAC probability threshold of 40%. Daily assessment of patient mobility should be part of routine practice to help inform care planning by hospital teams. Our prediction model could be used as a valuable tool by multidisciplinary teams in the discharge planning process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]