The Case for Mobility Assessment in Hospitalized Older Adults: American Geriatrics Society White Paper Executive Summary.

Mobility can be defined as the ability to move or be moved freely and easily. In older adults, mobility impairments are common and associated with risk for additional loss of function. Mobility loss is particularly common in these individuals during acute illness and hospitalization, and it is associated with poor outcomes, including loss of muscle mass and strength, long hospital stays, falls, declines in activities of daily living, decline in community mobility and social participation, and nursing home placement. Thus, mobility loss can have a large effect on an older adult's health, independence, and quality of life. Nevertheless, despite its importance, loss of mobility is not a widely recognized outcome of hospital care, and few hospitals routinely assess mobility and intervene to improve mobility during hospital stays. The Quality and Performance Measurement Committee of the American Geriatrics Society has developed a white paper supporting greater focus on mobility as an outcome for hospitalized older adults. The executive summary presented here focuses on assessing and preventing mobility loss in older adults in the hospital and summarizes the recommendations from that white paper. The full version of the white paper is available as Text S1. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:11-16, 2019.

Predictors of Inpatient Mortality and Resource Utilization for the Elderly Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C (CH-C) in the United States.

New incidents of chronic hepatitis C (CH-C) have stabilized yet the full impact of CH-C is not realized.Assess inpatient mortality and resource utilization for CH-C patients hospitalized in the United States.Adult CH-C patients were identified from The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2005 to 2009 database using the International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis codes (070.51, 070.54, 070.70, 070.71, 070.41, and 070.44) also used to identify comorbidities.324,823 hospitalized CH-C patients were identified. Of these, 13.63% (N = 44,288) were older than 65. The rate of hospitalization for the elderly cohort steadily increased over the study period with Medicare as the payer for the majority (86%). This cohort had higher inpatient charges, approximately a half day longer hospital stay (P < 0.001) and more moderate or severe illness. During the index hospitalization, older CH-C patients were twice more likely to die than the younger age-group (5% versus 2%, P < 0.001). In the adjusted model, older age (OR: 1.02 [95% CI, 1.02-1.03]), severity of illness (OR: 12.06 [95% CI, 10.68-13.62]), and number of diagnoses (OR: 1.10 [95% CI, 1.09-1.11]) were associated with higher in-hospital mortality; severity of illness and having private insurance were significantly associated with charge per hospital stay (P < 0.001).The number of CH-C patients 65 and older increased due to the aging of the baby boomer population. Early treatment of CH-C patients with highly effective, well-tolerated, new anti-HCV regimens may prevent this significant societal burden.

Elucidating Reasons for Resident Underutilization of Electronic Adverse Event Reporting.

Reasons for resident underutilization of adverse event (AE) reporting systems are unclear, particularly given frequent resident exposure to AEs and near misses (NMs). Residents at an academic medical center were surveyed about AEs/NMs, barriers to reporting, patient safety climate, and educational interventions. A total of 350 of 527 eligible residents (66%) completed the survey; 77% of respondents reported involvement in an AE/NM, though only 43% had used the reporting system. Top barriers to reporting were not knowing what or how to report. Surgeons reported more than other residents (surgery, 61%; medical, 38%; hospital-based, 15%; P < .01), yet more often felt that systems were unlikely to change after reporting (surgery, 49%; medical, 28%; hospital-based. 18%; P < .01). Residents preferred discussions with supervisors (52%) and department-led conferences (46%) to increased reporting. Efforts to increase resident reporting should address common barriers to reporting as well as department-specific differences in resident knowledge, perceptions of system effectiveness, and educational preferences.

Internal medicine interns' and residents' pressure ulcer prevention and assessment attitudes and abilities: results of an exploratory study .

 To evaluate and determine differences between attitudes of internal medicine interns and residents toward pressure ulcer (PU) prevention and to evaluate the interns' abilities to accurately identify wounds and stage PUs, an exploratory, quantitative study was conducted in a 639-bed, safety net academic center. Participants (21 internal medicine interns and 21 internal medicine residents) attending an educational session on PU prevention and care were eligible to participate. The 1-hour conference session was prepared and provided by a physician and wound care nurses. Before the lecture, participants were asked to complete an 11-question paper-and-pencil PU attitude survey. Following the lecture, they were asked to identify 11 wounds and stage PUs using the inpatient admission history and physical template used in the hospital's electronic medical record. An audience response system was used to record correct and incorrect responses. Nineteen (19) interns and 20 residents completed the survey. Twenty-one (21) interns successfully completed the wound assessment quiz. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the survey data and residents' and interns' average attitude scores were compared using independent group t-test. The results suggest that interns and residents have a positive attitude toward and are concerned about PU prevention. The significantly higher overall score among interns compared to residents (average 43.8 versus 38.8 respectively, P = 0.002) suggests interns have a more positive attitude than residents. Statistically significant differences between item scores showed that, compared to residents, interns perceived PU prevention to be more time-consuming (P = 0.01), less of a concern in practice (P = 0.02), and a lower priority than other areas of care (P = 0.003). Compared to residents, interns also were more likely to agree to with statement, "In my opinion, patients tend to not get as many pressure ulcers nowadays" (P = 0.0006). Both groups agreed that PU prevention is a greater priority than treatment and that using risk assessment tools is better than relying on clinical judgment. Wound assessment and PU staging results varied greatly, ranging from 100% for correct staging of a Stage I PU to 20% correct staging of an unstageable PU and 3% correct identification of a diabetic foot ulcer. Overall, internal medicine interns and residents have a favorable attitude toward PU prevention. Despite the limitations of this study, results suggest that enhanced medical school and residency wound care curricula are needed.