Improving the assessment and documentation of patient mobility using a quality improvement framework

Comparison of postoperative mobilization measurements by activPAL versus Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility scale after major abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

The Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility scale is a validated tool for assessing patient mobility in the hospital. It has excellent inter-rater and test-retest reliabilities, but it is unknown how accurately Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility documentation reflects the patients' mobility performance in the immediate postoperative period compared to objective measures such as accelerometers.

METHODS

In this single-center observational study, consented adults undergoing open abdominal surgery wore a research-grade accelerometer, activPAL, starting immediately postoperatively until hospital discharge or up to 7 days. We collected the Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility scores documented by hospital staff via retrospective chart review and evaluated their accuracy in describing the type, frequency, and volume of postoperative out-of-bed mobilization using the activPAL as the criterion.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 56 participants. The activPAL showed that participants spent 97.7% of their time lying in bed or sitting in a chair. Meanwhile, the Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility documentation of preambulatory activities (scores 1-5) was rare. The activPAL detected 4 times more out-of-bed mobilization than routine Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility documentation. Whereas the frequency of activPAL-measured out-of-bed mobilization increased steadily to a median of 9 sessions by postoperative day 6, the number of Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility documentation remained around twice daily. ActivPAL measurements demonstrated that Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility documentation of ambulatory sessions (scores 6-8) was accurate.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that routine Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility documentation did not accurately detect preambulatory activities or the overall frequency of out-of-bed mobility sessions, poorly reflecting the highly sedentary behaviors of the acute postoperative inpatients and highlighting the need to improve clinical documentation or use alternative methods to track postoperative mobilization.

Revealing the tension: The relationship between high fall risk categorization and low patient mobility

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.

Documenting fall episodes: a scoping review

Documentation is an important measure for the management of fall risk because it concentrates the attention of professionals, raises awareness of the existence of fall risk factors, and promotes action to eliminate or minimize them. This study aimed to map the evidence on information to document episodes of falls in older adults. We opted for a scoping review, which followed the Joanna Briggs Institute protocol for this kind of study. The research question that guided the research strategy was "What recommendations emerge from the research on the documentation of falls of the older person?" The inclusion criteria defined were older adults who had at least one fall; nursing documentation after a fall has occurred; and nursing homes, hospitals, community, and long-term care. The search was performed on the following platforms: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in January 2022 and allowed the identification of 854 articles, which after analysis resulted in a final sample of six articles. The documentation of fall episodes should answer the following questions: Who? What? When? Where? How? Doing what? What was said? What were the consequences? and What has been done? Despite the recommendations for the documentation of fall episodes as a preventive measure for their recurrence, there are no studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of this measure. Future studies should explore the association between fall documentation, fall recurrence prevention programs, and their impact on the prevalence rate of the second and subsequent falls, as well as the severity of injuries and fear of falling.

Extended mobility scale (AMEXO) for assessing mobilization and setting goals after gastrointestinal and oncological surgery: a before-after study

Background

Early structured mobilization has become a key element of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs to improve patient outcomes and decrease length of hospital stay. With the intention to assess and improve early mobilization levels, the 8-point ordinal John Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility (JH-HLM) scale was implemented at two gastrointestinal and oncological surgery wards in the Netherlands. After the implementation, however, healthcare professionals perceived a ceiling effect in assessing mobilization after gastrointestinal and oncological surgery. This study aimed to quantify this perceived ceiling effect, and aimed to determine if extending the JH-HLM scale with four additional response categories into the AMsterdam UMC EXtension of the JOhn HOpkins Highest Level of mObility (AMEXO) scale reduced this ceiling effect.

Methods

All patients who underwent gastrointestinal and oncological surgery and had a mobility score on the first postoperative day before (July–December 2018) or after (July–December 2019) extending the JH-HLM into the AMEXO scale were included. The primary outcome was the before-after difference in the percentage of ceiling effects on the first three postoperative days. Furthermore, the before-after changes and distributions in mobility scores were evaluated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to assess these differences.

Results

Overall, 373 patients were included (JH-HLM n = 135; AMEXO n = 238). On the first postoperative day, 61 (45.2%) patients scored the highest possible mobility score before extending the JH-HLM into the AMEXO as compared to 4 (1.7%) patients after (OR = 0.021, CI = 0.007–0.059, p < 0.001). During the first three postoperative days, 118 (87.4%) patients scored the highest possible mobility score before compared to 40 (16.8%) patients after (OR = 0.028, CI = 0.013–0.060, p < 0.001). A change in mobility was observed in 88 (65.2%) patients before as compared to 225 (94.5%) patients after (OR = 9.101, CI = 4.046–20.476, p < 0.001). Of these 225 patients, the four additional response categories were used in 165 (73.3%) patients.

Conclusions

A substantial ceiling effect was present in assessing early mobilization in patients after gastrointestinal and oncological surgery using the JH-HLM. Extending the JH-HLM into the AMEXO scale decreased the ceiling effect significantly, making the tool more appropriate to assess early mobilization and set daily mobilization goals after gastrointestinal and oncological surgery.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01445-3.