Towards improving hospital workflows: An evaluation of resources to mobilize patients.

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.

Using a Real-Time Location System for Assessment of Patient Ambulation in a Hospital Setting.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of using an infrared-based Real-Time Location System (RTLS) for measuring patient ambulation in a 2-minute walk test (2MWT) by comparing the distance walked and the Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility (JH-HLM) score to clinician observation as a criterion standard. DESIGN: Criterion standard validation study. SETTING: Inpatient, university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=25) in an adult neuroscience/brain rescue unit. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: RTLS and clinician-reported ambulation distance in feet, and JH-HLM score on an 8-point ordinal scale. RESULTS: The RTLS ambulation distance for the 25 patients in the 2MWT was between 68 and 516ft. The mean difference between clinician-reported and RTLS ambulation distance was 8.4±11.7ft (2.7%±4.6%). The correlation between clinician-reported and RTLS ambulation distance was 97.9% (P<.01). The clinician-reported ambulation distance for 2 patients was +100ft and -99ft compared with the RTLS distance, implying clinician error in counting the number of laps (98ft). The correlation between the RTLS distance and clinician-reported distance excluding these 2 patients is 99.8% (P<.01). The accuracy of the RTLS for assessment of JH-HLM score for all 25 patients was 96%. The average patient speed obtained from RTLS data varied between 0.4 and 3.0mph. CONCLUSIONS: The RTLS is able to accurately measure patient ambulation and calculate JH-HLM for a 2MWT when compared with clinician observation as the criterion standard.

Toward a Common Language for Measuring Patient Mobility in the Hospital: Reliability and Construct Validity of Interprofessional Mobility Measures.

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 coefficients) 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.