A tailored strategy for designing the Walk-Copenhagen (WALK-Cph) intervention to increase mobility in hospitalised older medical patients: a protocol for the qualitative part of the WALK-Cph project

More than medications: a patient-centered assessment of Parkinson's disease care needs during hospitalization

Background

Parkinson's disease (PD) increases the risk of hospitalization and complications while in the hospital. Patient-centered care emphasizes active participation of patients in decision-making and has been found to improve satisfaction with care. Engaging in discussion and capturing hospitalization experience of a person with PD (PwP) and their family care partner (CP) is a critical step toward the development of quality improvement initiatives tailored to the unique hospitalization needs of PD population.

Objectives

This qualitative study aimed to identify the challenges and opportunities for PD patient-centered care in hospital setting.

Methods

Focus groups were held with PwPs and CPs to capture first-hand perspectives and generate consensus themes on PD care during hospitalization. A semi-structured guide for focus group discussions included questions about inpatient experiences and interactions with the health system and the clinical team. The data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results

A total of 12 PwPs and 13 CPs participated in seven focus groups. Participants were 52% female and 28% non-white; 84% discussed unplanned hospitalizations. This paper focuses on two specific categories that emerged from the data analysis. The first category explored the impact of PD diagnosis on the hospital experience, specifically during planned and unplanned hospitalizations. The second category delves into the unique needs of PwPs and CPs during hospitalization, which included the importance of proper PD medication management, the need for improved hospital ambulation protocols, and the creation of disability informed hospital environment specific for PD.

Conclusion

PD diagnosis impacts the care experience, regardless of the reason for hospitalization. While provision of PD medications was a challenge during hospitalization, participants also desired flexibility in ambulation protocols and an environment that accommodated their disability. These findings highlight the importance of integrating the perspectives of PwPs and CPs when targeting patient-centered interventions to improve hospital experiences and outcomes.

Exercise for acutely hospitalised older medical patients

BACKGROUND

Approximately 30% of hospitalised older adults experience hospital-associated functional decline. Exercise interventions that promote in-hospital activity may prevent deconditioning and thereby maintain physical function during hospitalisation. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise interventions for acutely hospitalised older medical inpatients on functional ability, quality of life (QoL), participant global assessment of success and adverse events compared to usual care or a sham-control intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was May 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating an in-hospital exercise intervention in people aged 65 years or older admitted to hospital with a general medical condition. We excluded people admitted for elective reasons or surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our major outcomes were 1. independence with activities of daily living; 2. functional mobility; 3. new incidence of delirium during hospitalisation; 4. QoL; 5. number of falls during hospitalisation; 6. medical deterioration during hospitalisation and 7. participant global assessment of success. Our minor outcomes were 8. death during hospitalisation; 9. musculoskeletal injuries during hospitalisation; 10. hospital length of stay; 11. new institutionalisation at hospital discharge; 12. hospital readmission and 13. walking performance. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each major outcome. We categorised exercise interventions as: rehabilitation-related activities (interventions designed to increase physical activity or functional recovery, but did not follow a specified exercise protocol); structured exercise (interventions that included an exercise intervention protocol but did not include progressive resistance training); and progressive resistance exercise (interventions that included an element of progressive resistance training).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies (nine rehabilitation-related activity interventions, six structured exercise interventions and nine progressive resistance exercise interventions) with 7511 participants. All studies compared exercise interventions to usual care; two studies, in addition to usual care, used sham interventions. Mean ages ranged from 73 to 88 years, and 58% of participants were women. Several studies were at high risk of bias. The most common domain assessed at high risk of bias was measurement of the outcome, and five studies (21%) were at high risk of bias arising from the randomisation process. Exercise may have no clinically important effect on independence in activities of daily living at discharge from hospital compared to controls (16 studies, 5174 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies used the Barthel Index (scale: 0 to 100, higher scores representing greater independence). Mean scores at discharge in the control groups ranged from 42 to 96 points, and independence in activities of daily living was 1.8 points better (0.43 worse to 4.12 better) with exercise compared to controls. The minimally clinical important difference (MCID) is estimated to be 11 points. We are uncertain regarding the effect of exercise on functional mobility at discharge from the hospital compared to controls (8 studies, 2369 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three studies used the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) (scale: 0 to 12, higher scores representing better function) to measure functional mobility. Mean scores at discharge in the control groups ranged from 3.7 to 4.9 points on the SPPB, and the estimated effect of the exercise interventions was 0.78 points better (0.02 worse to 1.57 better). A change of 1 point on the SPPB represents an MCID. We are uncertain regarding the effect of exercise on the incidence of delirium during hospitalisation compared to controls (7 trials, 2088 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of delirium during hospitalisation was 88/1091 (81 per 1000) in the control group compared with 70/997 (73 per 1000; range 47 to 114) in the exercise group (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41). Exercise interventions may result in a small clinically unimportant improvement in QoL at discharge from the hospital compared to controls (4 studies, 875 participants; low-certainty evidence). Mean QoL on the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) visual analogue scale (VAS) (scale: 0 to 100, higher scores representing better QoL) ranged between 48.9 and 64.7 in the control group at discharge from the hospital, and QoL was 6.04 points better (0.9 better to 11.18 better) with exercise. A change of 10 points on the EQ-5D VAS represents an MCID. No studies measured participant global assessment of success. Exercise interventions did not affect the risk of falls during hospitalisation (moderate-certainty evidence). The incidence of falls was 31/899 (34 per 1000) in the control group compared with 31/888 (34 per 1000; range 20 to 57) in the exercise group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.65). We are uncertain regarding the effect of exercise on the incidence of medical deterioration during hospitalisation (very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of medical deterioration in the control group was 101/1417 (71 per 1000) compared with 96/1313 (73 per 1000; range 44 to 120) in the exercise group (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.68). Subgroup analyses by different intervention categories and by the use of a sham intervention were not meaningfully different from the main analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Exercise may make little difference to independence in activities of daily living or QoL, but probably does not result in more falls in older medical inpatients. We are uncertain about the effect of exercise on functional mobility, incidence of delirium and medical deterioration. Certainty of evidence was limited by risk of bias and inconsistency. Future primary research on the effect of exercise on acute hospitalisation could focus on more consistent and uniform reporting of participant's characteristics including their baseline level of functional ability, as well as exercise dose, intensity and adherence that may provide an insight into the reasons for the observed inconsistencies in findings.

Feasibility and implementation fidelity of a co-designed intervention to promote in-hospital mobility among older medical patients-the WALK-Copenhagen project (WALK-Cph)

BACKGROUND

Mobility interventions can prevent functional decline among older patients, but implementation of such interventions may be complicated by barriers in the clinical setting. The WALK-Copenhagen project (WALK-Cph) is aimed at promoting a 24-h mobility among older medical patients during hospitalization. The WALK-Cph intervention was co-designed by researchers and stakeholders to tailor the intervention to the clinical context. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and implementation fidelity of the WALK-Cph intervention before evaluating clinical effectiveness in a randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03825497).

METHODS

The WALK-Cph intervention consisted of six components: a welcome folder explaining the importance of in-hospital activity, a WALK-plan prescribing up to three daily walking sessions during and after hospitalization, a WALK-path in the hallway that patients were motivated to use daily, exercise posters in the hallways and bedrooms, self-service on beverages and clothes, and discharge with a WALK-plan. The present study reports on phase 2 of WALK-Cph and consists of a feasibility and a fidelity component. The study was conducted at the two WALK-Cph intervention departments after the initiation of the WALK-Cph intervention. A cohort of older medical patients (+65) was recruited for the feasibility study to assess recruitment and data collection procedures and the method for assessment of activity. Simultaneously, implementation fidelity was assessed by observing clinical practice and intervention delivery at the intervention departments.

RESULTS

A feasibility cohort of 48 patients was included. Inclusion was considered feasible with recruitment rates between 62% and 70% of all eligible patients. Also, data collection was conducted without obstacles, and all patients accepted to wear activity monitors. The fidelity observations showed that three of the six intervention components were partially implemented as planned whereas three components were not implemented as planned.

CONCLUSION

The WALK-Cph intervention was found feasible, and although the intervention was not implemented with fidelity, the level of fidelity was considered sufficient to continue with further testing of the WALK-Cph intervention in a large-scale trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03825497 (retrospectively registered). Protocol PubMed ID (PMID): 29523569.

Co-designing implementation strategies for the WALK-Cph intervention in Denmark aimed at increasing mobility in acutely hospitalized older patients: a qualitative analysis of selected strategies and their justifications

BACKGROUND

Selecting appropriate strategies to target barriers to implementing interventions represents a considerable challenge in implementation research and practice. The aim was to investigate what categories of implementation strategies were selected by health care practitioners and their managers in a co-design process and how they justified these strategies aimed at facilitating the implementation of the WALK-Cph intervention.

METHODS

The study used a qualitative research design to explore what implementation strategies were selected and the justifications for selecting these strategies. Workshops were used because this qualitative method is particularly well suited for studying co-design processes that involve substantial attention to social interaction and the context. Data were 1) analyzed deductively based on the Proctor et al. taxonomy of implementation strategies, 2) categorized in accordance with the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies by Powell et al., and 3) analyzed to examine the justification for the selected strategies by the Proctor et al. framework for justifications of implementation strategies.

RESULTS

Thirteen different types of implementation strategies were chosen across two hospitals. The deductive analysis showed that selection of implementation strategies was based on pragmatic and theoretical justifications. The contents of the two types of justifications were thematized into nine subthemes.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes with knowledge about categories and justification of implementation strategies selected in a co-design process. In this study, implementation strategies were selected through pragmatic and theoretical justifications. This points to a challenge in balancing strategies based on practice-based and research-based knowledge and thereby selection of strategies with or without proven effectiveness.

Adaptations and modifications to a co-designed intervention and its clinical implementation: a qualitative study in Denmark

BACKGROUND

There is a long-standing debate in implementation research on whether adaptations to evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are desirable in health care. If an intervention is adapted and not delivered as conceived and planned, it is said to have low fidelity. The WALK-Cph project was developed based on the assumption that involving stakeholders in co-design processes would facilitate the fidelity of an intervention to increase the mobility of acutely admitted older medical patients and its implementation in two hospitals in Denmark. The purpose of this study is to describe and analyse adaptations and modifications that were made to the co-designed WALK-Cph intervention and its implementation.

METHODS

This study used a qualitative design. An ethnographic field study was performed using participant observations, workshops and semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed twice using the Framework Method. The first analysis was based on the frameworks from Stirman, Moore and Proctor. The second analysis, a retrospective modifications analysis, was based on the Adaptation-Impact Framework.

RESULTS

Many different types of adaptations and modifications were made to the WALK-Cph intervention and its implementation plan. Most of the modifications were made on the contents of the intervention. In total, 44 adaptations and modifications were made, of which 21 were planned (adaptations) and 23 were made haphazardly (modifications). Most of the content and context adaptations and modifications made on the intervention had a mixed result regarding enhanced fidelity. The retrospective modifications analysis showed that modifications were ongoing and both situationally and contextually shaped.

CONCLUSIONS

Although an extensive co-design process was carried out to facilitate the fidelity of the WALK-Cph intervention, this study showed that many adaptations and modifications were still made to both the intervention and its implementation plan. It could indicate that the co-design process had a small effect or that adaptations and modifications are ongoing and both situationally and contextually shaped, which challenge the assumption and the desire to be able to plan and control changes.

Challenges in co-designing an intervention to increase mobility in older patients: a qualitative study

Purpose

The aim of this study is to explore and discuss key challenges associated with having stakeholders take part in co-designing a health care intervention to increase mobility in older medical patients admitted to two medical departments at two hospitals in Denmark.

Design/methodology/approach

The study used a qualitative design to investigate the challenges of co-designing an intervention in five workshops involving health professionals, patients and relatives. “Challenges” are understood as “situations of being faced with something that needs great mental or physical effort in order to be done successfully and therefore tests a person's ability” (Cambridge Dictionary). Thematic content analysis was conducted with a background in the analytical question: “What key challenges arise in the material in relation to the co-design process?”.

Findings

Two key challenges were identified: engagement and facilitation. These consisted of five sub-themes: recruiting patients and relatives, involving physicians, adjusting to a new researcher role, utilizing contextual knowledge and handling ethical dilemmas.

Research limitations/implications

The population of patients and relatives participating in the workshops was small, which likely affected the co-design process.

Practical implications

Researchers who want to use co-design must be prepared for the extra time required and the need for skills concerning engagement, communication, facilitation, negotiation and resolution of conflict. Time is also required for ethical discussions and considerations concerning different types of knowledge creation.

Originality/value

Engaging stakeholders in co-design processes is increasingly encouraged. This study documents the key challenges in such processes and reports practical implications.

Is Promotion of Mobility in Older Patients Hospitalized for Medical Illness a Physician's Job?-An Interview Study with Physicians in Denmark

: The aim of this study was to identify the most common barriers and facilitators physicians perceive regarding their role in the promotion of mobility in older adults hospitalized for medical illness as part of on an intervention to promote mobility. Twelve physicians at two medical departments were interviewed face-to-face using semi-structed interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. The physicians' perceived barriers to promoting mobility were: the patients being too ill, the department's interior does not fit with mobility, a culture of bedrest, mobility not being part their job, lack of time and resources and unwillingness to accept an extra workload. The facilitators for encouraging mobility were enhanced cross-professional cooperation focusing on mobility, physician encouragement of mobility and patient independence in e.g., picking up beverages and clothes. The identified barriers and facilitators reflected both individual and social influences on physicians' behaviors to achieve increased mobility in hospitalized older medical patients and suggest that targeting multiple levels is necessary to influence physicians' propensity to promote mobility.

A randomized controlled trial of the effect of supervised progressive cross-continuum strength training and protein supplementation in older medical patients: the STAND-Cph trial

Background

During hospitalization, older adults (+ 65 years) are inactive, which puts them at risk of functional decline and loss of independence. Systematic strength training can prevent loss of functional performance and combining strength training with protein supplementation may enhance the response in muscle mass and strength. However, we lack knowledge about the effect of strength training commenced during hospitalization and continued after discharge in older medical patients. This assessor-blinded, randomized study investigated the effect of a simple, supervised strength training program for the lower extremities, combined with post-training protein supplementation during hospitalization and in the home setting for 4 weeks after discharge, on the effect on change in mobility in older medical patients.

Methods

Older medical patients (≥ 65 years) admitted acutely from their home to the Emergency Department were randomized to either standard care or supervised progressive strength training and an oral protein supplement during hospitalization and at home 3 days/week for 4 weeks after discharge. The primary outcome was between-group difference in change in mobility from baseline to 4 weeks after discharge assessed by the De Morton Mobility Index, which assesses bed mobility, chair mobility, static and dynamic balance, and walking. Secondary outcomes were 24-h mobility, lower extremity strength, gait speed, grip strength and activities of daily living.

Results

Eighty-five patients were randomized to an intervention group (N = 43) or a control group (N = 42). In the intervention group, 43% were highly compliant with the intervention. Our intention-to-treat analysis revealed no between-group difference in mobility (mean difference in change from baseline to 4 weeks, − 4.17 (95% CI − 11.09; 2.74; p = 0.24) nor in any of the secondary outcomes. The per-protocol analysis showed that the daily number of steps taken increased significantly more in the intervention group compared to the control group (mean difference in change from baseline to 4 weeks, 1033.4 steps (95% CI 4.1; 2062.7), p = 0.049, adjusted for mobility at baseline and length of stay; 1032.8 steps (95% CI 3.6; 2061.9), p = 0.049, adjusted for mobility at baseline, length of stay, and steps at baseline).

Conclusions

Simple supervised strength training for the lower extremities, combined with protein supplementation initiated during hospitalization and continued at home for 4 weeks after discharge was not superior to usual care in the effect on change in mobility at 4 weeks in older medical patients. For the secondary outcome, daily number of steps, high compliance with the intervention resulted in a greater daily number of steps. Less than half of the patients were compliant with the intervention indicating that a simpler intervention might be needed.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01964482. Registered on 14 October 2013. Trial protocol PubMed ID (PMID), 27039381.

Disentangling the complexity of mobility of older medical patients in routine practice: An ethnographic study in Denmark

AIM

Many older medical patients experience persistent functional limitations after hospitalization, such as dependency in activities of daily living, recurring fall incidents and increased mortality. Therefore, increased activity and mobilization during hospitalization are essential to prevent functional decline in older medical patients. No previous studies have explored how the social context influences how health professionals decide whether or not to mobilize patients. This qualitative study aimed to explore how social contextual circumstances affect the mobility of older medical patients in medical departments.

METHODS

An ethnographic field study was conducted in six medical departments in three public hospitals in the capital region of Copenhagen, Denmark. Participant observations were carried out from January to June 2017. The researchers were present for up to 14 days (range, 8-14 days) in the six departments. A total of 210 pages of field notes were produced. The participants were health professionals involved in the care of older medical patients: physiotherapists, registered nurses, nursing assistants and physicians. A content analysis was conducted.

FINDINGS

Five themes concerning mobility of patients emerged: (1) materialities; (2) professional roles; (3) encouraging moments; (4) patients and relatives; and (5) organization and management. Of these, professional roles seem to be the most important because it pervaded all themes. Different health professionals in the medical departments recognized, spoke and acted based on different cultural models.

CONCLUSION

It was found that mobility of older medical patients is entangled in a complex network of social contextual circumstances. Mobility of older medical patients is based on health professionals' different cultural models, which shape distinct professional identities and lead to contradictions and blurring of the priorities and responsibilities among the health professionals involved in mobilization. The consequence is that no profession "owns" the responsibility for mobilization, thus restricting mobilization of the patients during hospitalization.