Assisted ambulation to improve health outcomes for older medical inpatients (AMBULATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized older adults spend as much as 95% of their time in bed, which can result in adverse events and delay recovery while increasing costs. Observational studies have shown that general mobility interventions (e.g., ambulation) can mitigate adverse events and improve patients' functional status. Mobility technicians (MTs) may address the need for patients to engage in mobility interventions without overburdening nurses. There is no data, however, on the effect of MT-assisted ambulation on adverse events or functional status, or on the cost tradeoffs if a MT were employed. The AMBULATE study aims to determine whether MT-assisted ambulation improves mobility status and decreases adverse events for older medical inpatients. It will also include analyses to identify the patients that benefit most from MT-assisted mobility and assess the cost-effectiveness of employing a MT. METHODS: The AMBULATE study is a multicenter, single-blind, parallel control design, individual-level randomized trial. It will include patients admitted to a medical service in five hospitals in two regions of the USA. Patients over age 65 with mild functional deficits will be randomized using a block randomization scheme. Those in the intervention group will ambulate with the MT up to three times daily, guided by the Johns Hopkins Mobility Goal Calculator. The intervention will conclude at hospital discharge, or after 10 days if the hospitalization is prolonged. The primary outcome is the Short Physical Performance Battery score at discharge. Secondary outcomes are discharge disposition, length of stay, hospital-acquired complications (falls, venous thromboembolism, pressure ulcers, and hospital-acquired pneumonia), and post-hospital functional status. DISCUSSION: While functional decline in the hospital is multifactorial, ambulation is a modifiable factor for many patients. The AMBULATE study will be the largest randomized controlled trial to test the clinical effects of dedicating a single care team member to facilitating mobility for older hospitalized patients. It will also provide a useful estimation of cost implications to help hospital administrators assess the feasibility and utility of employing MTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the United States National Library of Medicine clinicaltrials.gov (# NCT05725928). February 13, 2023.

Comparison of stratification techniques for optimal management of patients with chronic low back pain in spine clinics.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Identifying optimal stratification techniques for subgrouping patients with low back pain (LBP) into treatment groups for the purpose of identifying optimal management and improving clinical outcomes is an important area for further research. PURPOSE: Our study aimed to compare performance of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) and 3 stratification techniques involving PROMIS domain scores for use in patients presenting to a spine clinic for chronic LBP. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients with chronic LBP seen in a spine center between November 14, 2018 and May 14, 2019 who completed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as part of routine care, and were followed up with completed PROs 1 year later. OUTCOME MEASURES: Four stratification techniques, including SBT, and 3 PROMIS-based techniques: the NIH Task Force recommended Impact Stratification Score (ISS), symptom clusters based on latent class analysis (LCA), and SPADE symptom clusters. METHODS: The 4 stratification techniques were compared according to criterion validity, construct validity, and prognostic utility. For criterion validity, overlap in characterization of mild, moderate, and severe subgroups were compared to SBT, which was considered the gold standard, using quadratic weighted kappa statistic. Construct validity compared techniques' ability to differentiate across disability groups defined by modified Oswestry LBP Disability Questionnaire (MDQ), median days in the past month unable to complete activities of daily living (ADLs), and worker's compensation using standardized mean differences (SMD). Prognostic utility was compared based on the techniques' ability to predict long-term improvement in outcomes, defined as improvement in global health and MDQ at 1-year. RESULTS: There were 2,246 adult patients with chronic LBP included in our study (mean age 61.0 [SD 14.0], 55.0% female, 83.4% white). All stratification techniques resulted in roughly a third of patients grouped into mild, moderate, and severe categories, with ISS and LCA demonstrating substantial agreement with SBT, while SPADE had moderate agreement. Construct validity was met for all techniques, with large effects demonstrated between mild and severe categories for differentiating MDQ, ADLs, and worker's compensation disability groups (SMD range 0.57-2.48). All stratification techniques demonstrated ability to detect improvement by 1-year, with severe groups experiencing the greatest improvement in multivariable logistic regression models. CONCLUSIONS: All 4 stratification techniques demonstrated validity and prognostic utility for subgrouping patients with chronic LBP based on risk of long-term disability. ISS and LCA symptom clusters may be the optimal methods given the improved feasibility of including only a few relevant PROMIS domains. Future research should investigate multidisciplinary treatment approaches to target mild, moderate, and severe patients based on these techniques.

Stratification of spine patients based on self-reported clinical symptom classes: Evaluation of long-term outcomes and subsequent interventions.

Background: Prior work by our group developed a stratification tool based on four PROMIS domains for patients with low back pain (LBP). Our study aimed to evaluate the ability of our previously developed symptom classes to predict long-term outcomes, and determine whether there were differential treatment effects by intervention. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with LBP seen in spine clinics in a large health system between November 14, 2018 and May 14, 2019 who completed patient-reported outcomes as part of routine care at baseline and again at 12-months follow-up. Latent class analysis identified symptom classes based on PROMIS domain scores (physical function, pain interference, social role satisfaction, and fatigue) that were ≥1 standard deviation worse (meaningfully worse) than the general population. The ability of the profiles to predict long-term outcomes at 12-months was evaluated through multivariable models. Differences in outcomes by subsequent treatments (physical therapy, specialist visits, injections, and surgery) were investigated. Results: There were 3,236 adult patients (average age 61.1 ± 14.2, 55.4% female) included in the study with three distinct classes identified: mild symptoms (n = 986, 30.5%), mixed (n = 798, 24.7%) with poor scores on physical function and pain interference but better scores on other domains, and significant symptoms (n = 1,452, 44.9%). The classes were significantly associated with long-term outcomes, with patients with significant symptoms improving the most across all domains. Utilization differed across classes, with the mixed symptom class receiving more PT and injections and significant symptom class receiving more surgeries and specialist visits. Conclusions: Patients with LBP have distinct clinical symptom classes which could be utilized to stratify patients into groups based on risk of future disability. These symptom classes can also be used to provide estimates of the effectiveness of different interventions, further increasing the clinical utility of these classes in standard care.

Patient Versus Clinician Proxy Reliability of the AM-PAC "6-Clicks" Basic Mobility and Daily Activity Short Forms.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test the reliability of the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) "6-Clicks" mobility and activity short forms between patients and therapist proxies. As a secondary aim, reliability was examined when patients completed their self-report before versus after the therapist evaluation. METHODS: Patients being seen for an initial physical therapist (N = 70) or occupational therapist (N = 71) evaluation in the acute care hospital completed the "6-Clicks" mobility short form (if a physical therapist evaluation) or activity short form (if an occupational therapist evaluation). Whether patients completed their self-assessment before or after the evaluation was randomized. Patient- and therapist-rated "6-Clicks" raw scores were converted to AM-PAC T-scores for comparison. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots, and agreement was assessed with weighted kappa values. RESULTS: The ICCs for the "6-Clicks" mobility and daily activity short forms were 0.57 (95% CI = 0.42-0.69) and 0.45 (95% CI = 0.28-0.59), respectively. For both short forms, reliability was higher when the patient completed the self-assessment after versus before the therapist evaluation (ICC = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.47-0.80 vs ICC = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.26-0.67 for the mobility short form; and ICC = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.29-0.70 vs ICC = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.06-0.56 for the activity short form). CONCLUSION: Reliability of the "6-Clicks" total scores was moderate for both the mobility and activity short forms, though higher for the mobility short form and when patients' self-report occurred after the therapist evaluation. IMPACT: Reliability of the AM-PAC "6-Clicks" short forms is moderate when comparing scores from patients with those of therapists responding as proxies. The short forms are useful for measuring participants' function in the acute care hospital; however, it is critical to recognize limitations in reliability between clinician- and patient-reported AM-PAC scores when evaluating longitudinal change and recovery.

Association of Physical Therapy Treatment Frequency in the Acute Care Hospital With Improving Functional Status and Discharging Home.

BACKGROUND: Physical therapists (PTs) are consulted to address functional deficits during hospitalization, but the effect of PT visit frequency on patients' outcomes is not clear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine whether PT visit frequency is independently associated with functional improvement, discharge home, and both outcomes combined. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Patients discharged from hospitals in 1 health system between 2017 and 2020, stratified by diagnostic subgroup: cardiothoracic and vascular, general medical/surgical, neurological, oncology, and orthopedic. MEASURES: PT visit frequency was categorized as ≤2, >2-4, >4-7, >7 visits/week. Functional improvement was defined as ≥5-point improvement in Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care mobility score. Other outcomes were discharge home and both outcomes combined. RESULTS: There were 243,779 patients included. Proportions within frequency categories ranged from 11.0% (>7 visits/wk) to 40.5% (≤2 visits/wk) and varied by subgroup. In the full sample, 36% of patients improved function, 64% were discharged home, and 27% achieved both outcomes. In adjusted analyses, relative to ≤2 visits/week, the adjusted relative risk (aRR) for functional improvement increased incrementally with higher frequency (aRR=1.20, 95% confidence interval: 1.14-1.26 for >2-4 visits to aRR=1.78, 95% confidence interval: 1.55-2.03 for >7 visits). For all patients and within subgroups, the higher frequency was also associated with a greater likelihood of discharging home and achieving both outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: More frequent PT visits during hospitalization may facilitate functional improvement and discharge home. Most patients, however, receive infrequent visits. Further research is needed to determine the optimal delivery of PT services to meet individual patient needs.

Stratification of spine patients based on self-reported clinical symptom classes.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Improving prognostic stratification for patients with low back pain (LBP) outside of a primary care setting has been identified as an important area for further research. PURPOSE: Our study aimed to identify clinical symptom classes of patients presenting to a spine clinic based on 4 Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains and evaluate demographic and clinical differences across classes. STUDY DESIGN: An observational cross-sectional study of patients seen in spine centers at a large health system. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients with LBP seen in a spine center between November 14, 2018 and May 14, 2019 who completed patient-reported outcomes as part of routine care. OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMIS physical function, pain interference, satisfaction with social roles and activities, and fatigue. METHODS: Latent class analysis identified symptom classes based on PROMIS domain scores ≥1 standard deviation worse (meaningfully worse) than the general population. A multivariable multinomial logistic regression model was constructed to evaluate differences in symptom classes based on demographics and socioeconomic characteristics. Lastly, the ability of the profiles to discriminate across levels of disability, based on the modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI), was evaluated. RESULTS: There were 7,144 adult patients included in the study who visited spine clinics for a primary complaint of LBP and completed all 4 PROMIS domains (age 58.7±15.9, 54% female). Three distinct classes were identified. Class 1 ("Significant Symptoms," n=3238) had PROMIS scores that were meaningfully worse than the population average for all domains. Class 2 ("Mixed Symptoms," n=1366) had meaningfully worse scores on physical function and pain interference but average scores on other domains. Class 3 ("Mild Symptoms," n=2540) had average scores across all domains. Compared to patients in Class 3, those in Class 2 were more likely older, and those in Classes 1 and 2 were more likely to be divorced, have lower household income, and no employment. Level of disability was significantly different across each class (average (SD) ODI for Classes 1-3: 53.4 (14.3), 39.9 (12.5), 22.9 (12.1), p<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting to specialty clinics for LBP demonstrate distinct clinical symptom classes which could be utilized to inform specific symptom-based treatment. Future research should evaluate the ability of these classes to predict long-term disability.

Key Data Elements for Longitudinal Tracking of Physical Function: A Modified Delphi Consensus Study.

OBJECTIVE: Physical function is associated with important outcomes, yet there is often a lack of continuity in routine assessment. The purpose of this study was to determine data elements and instruments for longitudinal measurement of physical function in routine care among patients transitioning from acute care hospital setting to home with home health care. METHODS: A 4-round modified Delphi process was conducted with 13 participants with expertise in physical therapy, health care administration, health services research, physiatry/medicine, and health informatics. Three anonymous rounds identified important and feasible data elements. A fourth in-person round finalized the recommended list of individual data elements. Next, 2 focus groups independently provided additional perspectives from other stakeholders. RESULTS: Response rates were 100% for online rounds 1, 3, and 4 and 92% for round 2. In round 1, 9 domains were identified: physical function, participation, adverse events, behavioral/emotional health, social support, cognition, complexity of illness/disease burden, health care utilization, and demographics. Following the fourth round, 27 individual data elements were recommended. Of these, 20 (74%) are "administrative" and available from most hospital electronic medical records. Additional focus groups confirmed these selections and provided input on standardizing collection methods. A website has been developed to share these results and invite other health care systems to participate in future data sharing of these identified data elements. CONCLUSION: A modified Delphi consensus process was used to identify critical data elements to track changes in patient physical function in routine care as they transition from acute hospital to home with home health. IMPACT: Expert consensus on comprehensive and feasible measurement of physical function in routine care provides health care professionals and institutions with guidance in establishing discrete medical records data that can improve patient care, discharge decisions, and future research.

Functional Recovery Rate: A Feasible Method for Evaluating and Comparing Rehabilitation Outcomes Between Skilled Nursing Facilities.

OBJECTIVES: The recovery of patients' physical function and the rate at which this occurs are important parameters for evaluating value in post-acute care (PAC). However, no metrics are presently used to compare skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) based on the functional recovery rates (FRRs) for patients in their care. The objectives of this study were to examine whether the average FRR differed significantly among SNFs and to compare the FRR to other measures currently used to assess care quality in SNFs. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 3913 patients discharged from hospitals in one health system to one of 10 partner SNFs between January 2017 and September 2019. METHODS: The FRR-the difference in Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care 6-Clicks basic mobility score from SNF admission to discharge relative to the SNF length of stay (in days)-was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included metrics from the SNF Quality Reporting Program (functional recovery alone, discharge to the community, and 30-day hospital readmission). Differences in patients' outcomes between SNFs were tested using multiple regression in order to adjust for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Across the 10 SNFs, the highest adjusted mean FRR was 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55, 0.90] and the lowest was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.46) points per day. Two SNFs had an adjusted mean FRR statistically higher, and 2 had an FRR statistically lower, than the sample mean (0.50, 95% CI: 0.48-0.52). SNF rankings varied by metric. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Individual SNFs vary in their mean FRR for patients making it a potentially useful measure of value for comparing SNFs. Standardized measurement and reporting of FRR could be beneficial to patients and their families as they consider specific SNFs for necessary post-acute rehabilitation and to hospital systems seeking to identify high-value PAC providers with whom to partner in collaborative care models.

Frequency of Physical Therapist Intervention Is Associated With Mobility Status and Disposition at Hospital Discharge for Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: For patients diagnosed with the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, evidence is needed to understand the effect of treatment by physical therapists in the acute hospital on patient outcomes. The primary aims of this study were to examine the relationship of physical therapy visit frequency and duration in the hospital with patients' mobility status at discharge and probability of discharging home. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with COVID-19 admitted to any of 11 hospitals in 1 health system. The primary outcome was mobility status at discharge, measured using the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care 6-Clicks basic mobility (6-Clicks mobility) and the Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility scales. Discharge to home versus to a facility was a secondary outcome. Associations between these outcomes and physical therapy visit frequency or mean duration were tested using multiple linear or modified Poisson regression. Potential moderation of these relationships by particular patient characteristics was examined using interaction terms in subsequent regression models. RESULTS: For the 312 patients included, increased physical therapy visit frequency was associated with higher 6-Clicks mobility (b = 3.63; 95% CI, 1.54-5.71) and Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility scores (b = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.37-1.93) at hospital discharge and with increased probability of discharging home (adjusted relative risk = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.25-2.63). Longer mean visit duration was also associated with improved mobility at discharge and the probability of discharging home, though the effects were less pronounced. Few moderation effects were observed. CONCLUSION: Patients with COVID-19 demonstrated improved mobility at hospital discharge and higher probability of discharging home with increased frequency and longer mean duration of physical therapy visits. These associations were not generally moderated by patient characteristics. IMPACT: Physical therapy should be an integral component of care for patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. Providing sufficient physical therapist interventions to improve outcomes must be balanced against protection from viral spread. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with COVID-19 can benefit from more frequent and longer physical therapy visits in the hospital.

Use of the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care "6 Clicks" Basic Mobility Inpatient Short Form and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale to Predict Hospital Discharge Disposition After Stroke.

OBJECTIVE: Therapists in the hospital are charged with making timely discharge recommendations to improve access to rehabilitation after stroke. The objective of this study was to identify the predictive ability of the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care "6 Clicks" Basic Mobility Inpatient Short Form (6 Clicks mobility) score and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score for actual hospital discharge disposition after stroke. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, data were collected from an academic hospital in the United States for 1543 patients with acute stroke and a 6 Clicks mobility score. Discharge to home, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), or an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) was the primary outcome. Associations among these outcomes and 6 Clicks mobility and NIHSS scores, alone or together, were tested using multinomial logistic regression, and the predictive ability of these scores was calculated using concordance statistics. RESULTS: A higher 6 Clicks mobility score alone was associated with a decreased odds of actual discharge to an IRF or an SNF. The 6 Clicks mobility score alone was a strong predictor of discharge to home versus an IRF or an SNF. However, predicting discharge to an IRF versus an SNF was stronger when the 6 Clicks mobility score was considered in combination with the NIHSS score, age, sex, and race. CONCLUSION: The 6 Clicks mobility score alone can guide discharge decision making after stroke, particularly for discharge to home versus an SNF or an IRF. Determining discharge to an SNF versus an IRF could be improved by also considering the NIHSS score, age, sex, and race. Future studies should seek to identify which additional characteristics improve predictability for these separate discharge destinations. IMPACT: The use of outcome measures can improve therapist confidence in making discharge recommendations for people with stroke, can enhance hospital throughput, and can expedite access to rehabilitation, ultimately affecting functional outcomes.

The Six-Clicks Mobility Measure: A Useful Tool for Predicting Discharge Disposition.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the predictive capabilities of 2 measures of functional mobility, the 6-clicks score and the Braden scale mobility score. We also identified the additional predictive value of adding electronic health record data (demographics, laboratory data, and vital signs) to each model. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: A large integrated health system. PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥18 years of age (N=17,022) admitted to the inpatient medical service of one of 8 hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Predictive measures were patient demographics, laboratory values, vital signs, and functional mobility as measured by the 6-clicks score within the first 48 hours of hospital admission. Our outcome was discharge destination (home vs other). RESULTS: Our final sample included 19,963 records. Patients were discharged alive from 19,698 admissions. The majority were women (n=11,729, 59%) with a mean age of 73 (standard deviation, 15.3) years. Patients' initial 6-clicks score had moderate discrimination for discharge destination (c-statistic of 0.78) and outperformed the Braden score (c-statistic of 0.68). Electronic health record data alone had poor discrimination (c-statistic of 0.66) and added little to the model of 6-clicks alone (adjusted c-statistic increased from 0.78 to 0.80). CONCLUSION: Functional mobility measured via 6-clicks within 48 hours of admission can help identify patients who are likely to go home, facilitating early discharge planning.

Validation of PROMIS CATs and PROMIS Global Health in an Interdisciplinary Pain Program for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To (1) confirm validity of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function and pain interference computer-adaptive tests (CATs) and (2) assess the validity of PROMIS Global Health (GH) and five additional PROMIS CATs: social role satisfaction, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbance in a population of patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) who completed a 3-month Interdisciplinary Pain Program (IPP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent recommendations for assessing outcomes in patients with cLBP have included PROMIS scales; however, there is a need for further evaluation, and PROMIS GH has not been studied in this population. METHODS: The study cohort included patients with cLBP who completed the entirety of a 3-month IPP between August 2016 and December 2018. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed before the start of the IPP and at graduation. Convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients. Known groups' validity assessed the change in PROMIS scores stratified by improvement on the Modified LBP Disability Questionnaire. Responsiveness was evaluated with standardized response means based on global impression of change. RESULTS: IPP was completed by 217 patients (67.7% women, age 53.8 ±â€Š12.8). Convergent validity was supported (P < 0.01 for all pairwise PROMs comparisons). All PROMs improved significantly by graduation, with the largest improvement for PROMIS pain interference, physical function, social role satisfaction, and Modified LBP Disability Questionnaire. Known groups' validity demonstrated the greatest change on PROMIS physical function, social role satisfaction, pain interference, and depression. Responsiveness was supported for all PROMs in 170 (78.3%) patients who indicated at least minimal improvement (standardized response means 0.43-1.06). CONCLUSION: Our study provides support of PROMIS CATs, highlights the importance of including other meaningful outcome measures, such as social role satisfaction, and provides the first validation of PROMIS GH, in patients with cLBP. PROMs collection can be streamlined through the use of PROMIS CATs which offer advantages over legacy measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Comparative Effectiveness of an Interdisciplinary Pain Program for Chronic Low Back Pain, Compared to Physical Therapy Alone.

STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of PT to an interdisciplinary treatment approach in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CLBP is a costly and potentially disabling condition. Physical therapy (PT), cognitive behavioral therapy, and interdisciplinary pain programs (IPPs) are superior to usual care. Empirical evidence is lacking to clearly support one treatment approach over another in patients with CLBP. METHODS: One hundred seventeen adult patients who completed an IPP for individuals with ≥3 months of back pain were compared to 214 adult patients with similar characteristics who completed PT. The Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire was the primary outcome measure. Additional measures included: PROMIS physical function, global health, social role satisfaction, pain interference, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and Patient Health Questionnaire. Patients who completed the IPP were matched by propensity score to a historical control group of patients who completed a course of PT. Change in functional disability was compared between IPP patients and matched controls. Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed pre to post participation in the IPP using paired t test and by calculating the proportion with clinically meaningful improvement. RESULTS: Propensity score matching generated 81 IPP and 81 PT patients. Patients enrolled in the IPP had significantly greater improvement in MDQ scores upon completion compared to patients in PT (15.8 vs. 7.1, P < 0.001). The majority of IPP patients reached the threshold for clinically meaningful change of ≥10 point reduction (60.5%) compared to 34.6% of PT patients, P < 0.01. Patients in the IPP also showed statistically and clinically significant improvement in social role satisfaction, fatigue, and sleep disturbance. CONCLUSION: CLBP patients in an IPP demonstrated greater functional improvements compared to similar patients participating in PT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Increasing Mobility via In-hospital Ambulation Protocol Delivered by Mobility Technicians: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ambulating medical inpatients may improve outcomes, but this practice is often overlooked by nurses who have competing clinical duties. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of dedicated mobility technician-assisted ambulation in older inpatients. DESIGN: This study was a single-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Patients aged ≥60 years and admitted as medical inpatients to a tertiary care center were recruited. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized into two groups to participate in the ambulation protocol administered by a dedicated mobility technician. Usual care patients were not seen by the mobility technician but were not otherwise restricted in their opportunity to ambulate. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were length of stay and discharge disposition. Secondary outcomes included change in mobility measured by six-clicks score, daily steps measured by Fitbit, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Control (n = 52) and intervention (n = 50) groups were not significantly different at baseline. Of patients randomized to the intervention group, 74% participated at least once. Although the intervention did not affect the primary outcomes, the intervention group took nearly 50% more steps than the control group (P = .04). In the per protocol analysis, the six-clicks score significantly increased (P = .04). Patients achieving ≥400 steps were more likely to go home (71% vs 46%, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Attempted ambulation three times daily overseen by a dedicated mobility technician was feasible and increased the number of steps taken. A threshold of 400 steps was predictive of home discharge. Further studies are needed to establish the appropriate step goal and the effect of assisted ambulation on hospital outcomes.

The use of STarT back screening tool to predict functional disability outcomes in patients receiving physical therapy for low back pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) categorizes risk of future disability in patients with low back pain (LBP). Previous studies evaluating the use of SBST in physical therapy (PT) populations do not reflect the ethnic and socioeconomic diversity occurring in clinical practice and lack statistical power to evaluate factors associated with outcomes within each SBST risk category. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to further refine SBST risk categorization for predicting improvements in functional disability with attention toward patient level factors that might guide SBST use in routine outpatient physical therapy practice. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This was a retrospective cohort study that took place within a large academic, tertiary-care health system. PATIENT SAMPLE: The study cohort consisted of 1,169 patients with LBP who completed a course of outpatient physical therapy from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015 and who completed the patient-reported SBST and modified low back pain disability questionnaire (MDQ) questionnaires as part of standard of care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Improvement in functional disability defined as decrease in 10 or more points in the MDQ. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate independent predictors of improvement after PT, which included SBST risk category, baseline MDQ, a two-way interaction term between SBST category and baseline MDQ, prior level of function (independent vs. required assistance), demographic characteristics, number of completed PT visits, and duration of PT episode of care. In exploratory analyses, additional two-way interaction terms between SBST category and the significant predictors were added to the regression model. RESULTS: Mean age of patients in the study cohort was 55.1 years (SD 16.1); 657 (56.2%) were female, 117 (10.0%) were black race, 127 (10.9%) had Medicaid insurance, and 353 (30.2%) had previously received PT for back pain. In all, 35.8% (n=419) patients categorized as low risk SBST category, 40.7% (n=476) medium risk SBST category, and 23.4% (n=274) high risk SBST category. There was an interaction between baseline MDQ and SBST risk category and improvement with PT. For all three SBST categories, higher baseline MDQ was associated with higher probability of improvement, but the effect was less pronounced as SBST risk category increased. Additional factors independently associated with reduced odds of improvement after PT included black race (odds ratio [OR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.72), Medicaid insurance (OR=0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.95), and prior PT (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.67). In exploratory analyses, there was a significant interaction between insurance type and SBST risk category in predicting functional improvement after PT. Patients with Medicare and Medicaid insurance had similar rates of improvement in low and high risk SBST categories but different rates of improvement in the medium risk categories. CONCLUSIONS: The SBST tool predicts outcomes of PT in a cohort of patients receiving outpatient PT for LBP. The odds of improvement varied according to baseline disability and SBST risk status. Race, insurance type, and history of previous PT influenced prediction independent of SBST risk status. Incorporating these variables and the interaction between SBST and baseline disability in outcome models has the potential to refine prediction of outcomes after PT.

Minimally Clinically Important Change in the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC), a Generic Patient-Reported Outcome Tool, in People With Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: The Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) is a generic metric of patient-reported functional status. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the AM-PAC score has not been determined. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to determine the MCID for AM-PAC in people with low back pain. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MCID. The Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire was used as the anchor. Adults who had a primary ICD-9 code for low back pain in at least 1 outpatient physical therapist visit during an episode of care and who completed both the AM-PAC and the Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire in at least 2 visits during the care episode were included. The MCID was calculated for the AM-PAC basic mobility version as well its adapted version, which the Cleveland Clinic uses for patients 65 years old or older. RESULTS: A total of 1,271 participants were eligible for study. For the AM-PAC basic mobility version, anchor-based methods yielded MCID estimates of between 3.4 and 5.1, whereas distribution-based methods yielded estimates of 1.7 to 4.2. The minimal detectable change (MDC) for the AM-PAC basic mobility version was 3.3. For the adapted AM-PAC basic mobility version, the MCID was estimated to be between 2.9 and 4.0 via anchor-based methods and between 1.2 to 3.5 via distribution-based methods. The MDC for the adapted AM-PAC basic mobility version was 3.5. LIMITATIONS: The estimated MCID was designed for people with low back pain only. CONCLUSIONS: The MCID ranged from 3.3 to 5.1 for the AM-PAC basic mobility version and 3.5 to 4 for the adapted version, with the MDC as the lower limit. Changes in the AM-PAC for people with low back pain may be interpreted using the estimated MCID. Future studies are needed to determine the AM-PAC MCID for populations other than those with low back pain.

Are CMS G-Code Functional Limitation Severity Modifiers Responsive to Change Across an Episode of Outpatient Rehabilitation?

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has mandated rehabilitation professionals to document patients' impairment levels. There is no evidence of responsiveness to change of functional limitation severity modifier codes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of G-code functional limitation severity modifier codes in determining change in function. DESIGN: This was a retrospective observational study. METHODS: Patients completed the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) and were assigned G-codes, with severity modifiers based on AM-PAC scores at initial and follow-up visits. Patients were classified as having AM-PAC scores in the upper or lower range for each severity modifier, and sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for change in severity modifier level and odds of changing by one severity modifier level using a change in AM-PAC score of at least 1 minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence interval (MDC95) as the standard were determined. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of change in severity modifier in determining change in function were dependent on patients' initial AM-PAC scores. Improvement in severity modifier level was 2.2 to 4.5 times more likely with scores at the higher end of the range within a severity modifier level than with scores in the lower end of the range. Decline in severity modifier level was 2.7 to 4.8 times more likely with scores at the lower end of the range within a severity modifier than with scores in the higher end of the range. LIMITATIONS: Data were from one health care system, and most patients had orthopedic conditions. The MDC95 for AM-PAC tool may not be the best standard for defining functional change. CONCLUSIONS: The G-code functional limitation severity modifier system may not be valid for determining change in function and is not recommended for determining if patients have changed over the course of outpatient therapy.

Interrater Reliability of AM-PAC "6-Clicks" Basic Mobility and Daily Activity Short Forms.

BACKGROUND: The interrater reliability of 2 new inpatient functional short-form measures, Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) "6-Clicks" basic mobility and daily activity scores, has yet to be established. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the interrater reliability of AM-PAC "6-Clicks" measures. DESIGN: A prospective observational study was conducted. METHODS: Four pairs of physical therapists rated basic mobility and 4 pairs of occupational therapists rated daily activity of patients in 1 of 4 hospital services. One therapist in a pair was the primary therapist directing the assessment while the other therapist observed. Each therapist was unaware of the other's AM-PAC "6-Clicks" scores. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland-Altman plots, and weighted kappa. RESULTS: The ICCs for the overall reliability of basic mobility and daily activity were .849 (95% confidence interval [CI]=.784, .895) and .783 (95% CI=.696, .847), respectively. The ICCs for the reliability of each pair of raters ranged from .581 (95% CI=.260, .789) to .960 (95% CI=.897, .983) for basic mobility and .316 (95% CI=-.061, .611) to .907 (95% CI=.801, .958) for daily activity. The weighted kappa values for item agreement ranged from .492 (95% CI=.382, .601) to .712 (95% CI=.607, .816) for basic mobility and .251 (95% CI=.057, .445) to .751 (95% CI=.653, .848) for daily activity. Mean differences between raters' scores were near zero. LIMITATIONS: Raters were from one health system. Each pair of raters assessed different patients in different services. CONCLUSIONS: The ICCs for AM-PAC "6-Clicks" total scores were very high. Levels of agreement varied across pairs of raters, from large to nearly perfect for physical therapists and from moderate to nearly perfect for occupational therapists. Levels of agreement for individual item scores ranged from small to very large.

AM-PAC "6-Clicks" functional assessment scores predict acute care hospital discharge destination.

BACKGROUND: Physical therapists and occupational therapists practicing in acute care hospitals play a crucial role in discharge planning. A standardized assessment of patients' function could be useful for discharge recommendations. OBJECTIVES: The study objective was to determine the accuracy of "6-Clicks" basic mobility and daily activity measures for predicting discharge from an acute care hospital to a home or institutional setting. DESIGN: The study was retrospective and observational. METHODS: "6-Clicks" scores obtained at initial visits by physical therapists or occupational therapists and patients' discharge destinations were used to develop and validate receiver operating characteristic curves for predicting discharge destination. Positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and likelihood ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for basic mobility scores were 0.857 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.852, 0.862) and 0.855 (95% CI=0.850, 0.860) in development and validation samples, respectively. Areas under the curves for daily activity scores were 0.846 (95% CI=0.841, 0.851) and 0.845 (95% CI=0.840, 0.850) in development and validation samples, respectively. Cutoff scores providing the best accuracy for determining discharge destination were 42.9 for basic mobility and 39.4 for daily activity. For basic mobility, the PPV was 0.748 and the NPV was 0.801 in both development and validation samples. For daily activity, the PPVs were 0.787 and 0.784 and the NPVs were 0.748 and 0.746 in development and validation samples, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included lack of information on the rater reliability of "6-Clicks" instruments, use of surrogate data for some discharge designations, and use of a clinical database for research purposes. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of the accuracy of "6-Clicks" scores for predicting destination after discharge from an acute care hospital.