8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessment of Mobility in Older People Hospitalized for Medical Illness Using the de Morton Mobility Index and Cumulated Ambulation Score-Validity and Minimal Clinical Important Difference

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and Purpose:

          Older adults acutely hospitalized for medical illness typically have comorbidity and disability, and in-hospital physical inactivity greatly increases the likelihood of developing new disability. Thus, assessment of the patients' mobility status is crucial for planning and carrying out targeted interventions that ensure mobilization during hospital admission. The aim of this study was to determine convergent validity, known group validity, floor and ceiling effects, and anchor-based minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the more time-consuming de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) and the less time-consuming Cumulated Ambulation Score (CAS) in older adults acutely hospitalized for medical illness.

          Methods:

          In this multicenter cohort study, 235 older hospitalized adults, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 84.8 (7.1) years, were consecutively included. Assessments of mobility using the DEMMI (score range 0-100), the CAS (score range 0-6), and the Barthel Index (BI, score range 0-100) were performed by physical or occupational therapists at hospital admission and discharge. In addition, at discharge patients and therapists were independently asked to assess the patients' current mobility status compared with their mobility status at hospital admission using the Global Rating of Change scale.

          Results and Discussion:

          Complete data sets were obtained for 155 patients. Baseline characteristics of those with complete data sets did not differ from those with incomplete data sets, except for the number of secondary diagnoses, which was lower in the latter. Significant and moderate relationships existed both at admission and at discharge between scores in the DEMMI and the BI ( r s = 0.68, P < .0001, and r s = 0.71, P < .0001), and between scores in the CAS and the BI ( r s = 0.60, P < .0001, and r s = 0.57, P < .0001). Use of a gait aid and discharge to inpatient rehabilitation or nursing home were associated with significantly lower DEMMI and CAS scores. No floor or ceiling effects were present in the DEMMI, while a ceiling effect was present in the CAS. The MCID scores based on patients' assessments were 10.7 points for the DEMMI and 0.67 for the CAS.

          Conclusions:

          These data show that the DEMMI is valid and responsive to changes in mobility and can be considered to have the required properties for measuring mobility in older adults who are hospitalized in medical and geriatric wards. In contrast, the CAS appears to be appropriate to identify whether a patient is independently mobile or needs assistance, while the measure is less suitable for measuring improvements in mobility.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.

          In recent years quality of life instruments have been featured as primary outcomes in many randomized trials. One of the challenges facing the investigator using such measures is determining the significance of any differences observed, and communicating that significance to clinicians who will be applying the trial results. We have developed an approach to elucidating the significance of changes in score in quality of life instruments by comparing them to global ratings of change. Using this approach we have established a plausible range within which the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) falls. In three studies in which instruments measuring dyspnea, fatigue, and emotional function in patients with chronic heart and lung disease were applied the MCID was represented by mean change in score of approximately 0.5 per item, when responses were presented on a seven point Likert scale. Furthermore, we have established ranges for changes in questionnaire scores that correspond to moderate and large changes in the domains of interest. This information will be useful in interpreting questionnaire scores, both in individuals and in groups of patients participating in controlled trials, and in the planning of new trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Recovery of activities of daily living in older adults after hospitalization for acute medical illness.

            To compare functional outcomes in the year after discharge for older adults discharged from the hospital after an acute medical illness with a new or additional disability in their basic self-care activities of daily living (ADL) (compared with preadmission baseline 2 weeks before admission) with those of older adults discharged with baseline ADL function and identify predictors of failure to recover to baseline function 1 year after discharge. Observational. Tertiary care hospital, community teaching hospital. Older (aged >or=70) patients nonelectively admitted to general medical services (1993-1998). Number of ADL disabilities at preadmission baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after discharge. Outcomes were death, sustained decline in ADL function, and recovery to baseline ADL function at each time point. By 12 months after discharge, of those discharged with new or additional ADL disability, 41.3% died, 28.6% were alive but had not recovered to baseline function, and 30.1% were at baseline function. Of those discharged at baseline function, 17.8% died, 15.2% were alive but with worse than baseline function, and 67% were at their baseline function (P<.001). Of those discharged with new or additional ADL disability, the presence or absence of recovery by 1 month was associated with long-term outcomes. Age, cardiovascular disease, dementia, cancer, low albumin, and greater number of dependencies in instrumental ADLs independently predicted failure to recover. For older adults discharged with new or additional disability in ADL after hospitalization for medical illness, prognosis for functional recovery is poor. Rehabilitation interventions of longer duration and timing than current reimbursement allows, caregiver support, and palliative care should be evaluated.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design.

              Most clinicians ask their patients to rate whether their health condition has improved or deteriorated over time and then use this information to guide management decisions. Many studies also use patient-rated change as an outcome measure to determine the efficacy of a particular treatment. Global rating of change (GRC) scales provide a method of obtaining this information in a manner that is quick, flexible, and efficient. As with any outcome measure, however, meaningful interpretation of results can only be undertaken with due consideration of the clinimetric properties, strengths, and weaknesses of the instrument. The purpose of this article is to summarize this information to assist appropriate interpretation of the GRC results and to provide evidence-informed advice to guide design and administration of GRC scales. These considerations are relevant and applicable to the use of GRC scales both in the clinic and in research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Geriatr Phys Ther
                J Geriatr Phys Ther
                JGPT
                Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy (2001)
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
                1539-8412
                2152-0895
                July 2019
                15 December 2017
                : 42
                : 3
                : 153-160
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen University, Denmark.
                [2 ]Elective Surgery Centre, Regional Hospital Central Jutland, Denmark.
                [3 ]Department of Rehabilitation, Copenhagen Municipality, Denmark.
                [4 ]Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
                Author notes
                [*]Address correspondence to: Helle Andersen, PT, MSc, Department of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen University, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, Bldg 10, DK 2400 NV, Denmark ( Helle.Andersen@ 123456regionh.dk ).
                Article
                jgpt4203p153
                10.1519/JPT.0000000000000170
                6687413
                29252932
                2d4af301-5b24-40b6-9ec3-4470484fa69d
                © 2017 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of Academy of Geriatric Physical Therapy, APTA.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                Categories
                Research Reports
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                aged,mobility limitation,outcome assessment,rehabilitation,validity

                Comments

                Comment on this article