Search

ObjectiveTo examine the effect of severe lower extremity trauma on meeting Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (PAGA) 18 months after injury and perform an exploratory analysis to identify demographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors associated with meeting PAGA.DesignSecondary analysis of observational cohort study.SettingA total of 34 United States trauma centers PARTICIPANTS: A total of 328 adults with severe distal tibia, ankle and mid- to hindfoot injuries treated with limb reconstruction (N=328).InterventionsNone.Main outcome measuresThe Paffenbarger Physical Activity Questionnaire was used to assess physical activity levels 18 months after injury. Meeting PAGA was defined as combined moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity ≥150 minutes per week or vigorous-intensity activity ≥75 minutes per week.ResultsFewer patients engaged in moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity after injury compared with before injury (moderate: 44% vs 66%, P

Background: Femoral fragility fractures in older adults can result in devastating loss of physical function and independence. Skeletalmuscle atrophy likely contributes to disability. The purpose of this study was to characterize the change in skeletalmuscle mass, investigate the relationship with malnutrition and physical function, and identify risk factors for skeletal muscle loss. Methods: Adults ≥65 years of age who were treated with operative fixation of an isolated femoral fragility fracture were enrolled in this multicenter, prospective observational study. Skeletal muscle mass was assessed within 72 hours of admission using multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis, which was repeated at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Sarcopenia was defined by sex-specific cutoffs for the appendicular skeletal muscle mass index. The Mini Nutritional Assessment was used to measure nutritional status at the time of injury. Physical function was measured using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function domain. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate changes in skeletal muscle mass and PROMIS Physical Function scores over time and to evaluate factors associated with skeletal muscle mass changes. Results: Ninety participants (74% female) with a mean age of 77.6 ± 9.0 years were enrolled. At the time of injury, 30 (33%) were sarcopenic and 44 (49%) were at risk for malnutrition or had malnutrition. Older age was associated with lower skeletal muscle mass (age of ≥75 versus <75 years: least squares mean [and standard error],23.3 ± 1.6 kg; p = 0.042). From the time of injury to 6 weeks, participants lost an average of 2.4 kg (9%) of skeletal muscle mass (95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.0 to -1.8 kg; p < 0.001). This early loss did not recover by 6 months (1.8 kg persistent loss compared with baseline [95% CI = -2.5 to -1.1 kg]; p < 0.001). Participants with normal nutritional status lost more skeletal muscle mass from baseline to 6 weeks after injury compared with those with malnutrition (1.3 kg more loss [standard error, 0.6 kg]; p = 0.036). A 1-kg decrease in skeletal muscle mass was associated with an 8-point decrease in the PROMIS Physical Function (model parameter estimate, 0.12 [standard error, 0.04]; p = 0.002). Conclusions: We found that older adults with femoral fragility fractures lost substantial skeletal muscle mass and physical function. Participants with adequate baseline nutrition actually lost more muscle mass than those who were malnourished, indicating that future investigations of interventions to prevent muscle loss should focus on older adults regardless of nutritional status. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little evidence is available to guide physical therapy (PT) following lower extremity fracture repair distal to the hip. As such, variability has been reported in the way PT is utilized post-operatively. Examination of current practice by orthopedic surgeons (OS) and physical therapists is needed to inform clinical practice guidelines in this area. To describe current PT referral practices among OS, identify patient and clinical factors that affect PT referral, and examine differences between OS and physical therapists with regard to visit frequency, duration, and use of specific PT interventions. Provider surveys. Surveys were completed by 100 OS and 347 physical therapists. Over half (54%) of OS reported referring "most patients" to PT and identified joint stiffness and strength limitations as top reasons for PT referral. Over 80% of OS and physical therapists indicated that joint stiffness, strength limitations, and patients' functional goals affected their recommendations for PT visit frequency. More physical therapists than OS reported that pain severity (55% vs 25%, p <.001), maladaptive pain behaviors (64% vs. 33%, p <.001), and patient self-efficacy (70% vs. 49%, p =.003) affected their visit frequency recommendations. While OS recommended more frequent PT for patients with peri-articular fractures, fracture type had minimal impact on the visit frequencies recommended by physical therapists. OS and physical therapists consider similar physical impairments when determining the need for PT and visit frequencies, however, physical therapists consider pain and psychosocial factors more often, with OS focusing more on injury type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Guided Care (GC) is a model of health care for multimorbid older adults that is provided by a registered nurse who works with the patients' primary care physician (PCP). The purpose of this study was to determine whether GC improves patients' primary caregivers' depressive symptoms, strain, productivity, and perceptions of the quality of care recipients' chronic illness care. Design and Methods: A cluster-randomized controlled trial of GC was conducted within 14 PCP teams. The study sample included 196 primary caregivers who completed baseline and 18-month surveys and whose care recipients remained alive and enrolled in the GC study for 18 months. Caregiver outcomes included the following: depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale), strain (Modified Caregiver Strain Index), the quality of care recipients' chronic illness care [Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)], and personal productivity (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, adapted for caregiving). Results: In multivariate regression models, between-group differences in depression, strain, work productivity, and regular activity productivity were not statistically significant after 18 months, but GC caregivers reported the overall quality of their recipients' chronic illness care to be significantly higher (adjusted beta = 0.40, 95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.67). Quality was significantly higher in 4 of 5 PACIC subscales, reflecting the dimensions of goal setting, coordination of care, decision support, and patient activation. Implications: GC improved the quality of chronic illness care received by multimorbid care recipients but did not improve caregivers' depressive symptoms, affect, or productivity.

Purpose: Guided Care (GC) is a model of health care for multimorbid older adults that is provided by a registered nurse who works with the patients' primary care physician (PCP). The purpose of this study was to determine whether GC improves patients' primary caregivers' depressive symptoms, strain, productivity, and perceptions of the quality of care recipients' chronic illness care. Design and Methods: A cluster-randomized controlled trial of GC was conducted within 14 PCP teams. The study sample included 196 primary caregivers who completed baseline and 18-month surveys and whose care recipients remained alive and enrolled in the GC study for 18 months. Caregiver outcomes included the following: depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale), strain (Modified Caregiver Strain Index), the quality of care recipients' chronic illness care [Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)], and personal productivity (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, adapted for caregiving). Results: In multivariate regression models, between-group differences in depression, strain, work productivity, and regular activity productivity were not statistically significant after 18 months, but GC caregivers reported the overall quality of their recipients' chronic illness care to be significantly higher (adjusted beta = 0.40, 95% confidence interval : 0.14-0.67). Quality was significantly higher in 4 of 5 PACIC subscales, reflecting the dimensions of goal setting, coordination of care, decision support, and patient activation. Implications: GC improved the quality of chronic illness care received by multimorbid care recipients but did not improve caregivers' depressive symptoms, affect, or productivity. Key Words: Caregiving, Chronic disease, Nursing, Primary care, Guided Care doi: 10.1093/geront/gnp124

Background. The Guided Care Program t-or Families and Friends (GCPFF) is one component of 'Guided Care' (GC), a model of primary care for chronically ill older adults that is facilitated by a registered nurse who has completed a supplemental educational curriculum. Methods. The GCPFF melds support for family caregivers with the delivery of coordinated and comprehensive chronic care and seeks to improve the health and well-being of both patients and their family caregivers. The GCPFF encompasses (a) an initial meeting between the nurse and the patient's primary caregiver, (b) education and referral to community resources, (c) ongoing 'coaching.' (d) a six-session group Caregiver Workshop, and (e) monthly Support Group meetings, all facilitated by the patient's GC nurse. Results. A cluster-randomized controlled trial of GC is underway in 14 primary care physician teams. Of 904 consented patients, 450 (49.8%) identified a primary caregiver: 308 caregivers met eligibility criteria, consented to participate, and completed a baseline interview. At 6-month follow-up, intervention group caregivers' mean Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CESD) and Caregiver Strain Index (CSI) scores were respectively 0.97 points (p =. 14) and 1.14 points (p = .06) lower than control group caregivers'. Among caregivers who provided more than 14 hours of weekly assistance at baseline, intervention group caregivers' mean CESD and CSI scores were respectively 1.23 points (p = .20) and 1.83 points (p = .04) lower than control group caregivers'. Conclusions. The GCPFF may benefit family caregivers of chronically ill older adults. Outcomes will continue to be monitored at 18-months follow-up. Key Words: Caregiving--Chronic disease--Nursing Primary care.