Outcomes of Mobilisation of Vulnerable Elders in Ontario (MOVE ON): a multisite interrupted time series evaluation of an implementation intervention to increase patient mobilisation.

Background: older patients admitted to hospitals are at risk for hospital-acquired morbidity related to immobility. The aim of this study was to implement and evaluate an evidence-based intervention targeting staff to promote early mobilisation in older patients admitted to general medical inpatient units. Methods: the early mobilisation implementation intervention for staff was multi-component and tailored to local context at 14 academic hospitals in Ontario, Canada. The primary outcome was patient mobilisation. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), discharge destination, falls and functional status. The targeted patients were aged ≥ 65 years and admitted between January 2012 and December 2013. The intervention was evaluated over three time periods-pre-intervention, during and post-intervention using an interrupted time series design. Results: in total, 12,490 patients (mean age 80.0 years [standard deviation 8.36]) were included in the overall analysis. An increase in mobilisation was observed post-intervention, where significantly more patients were out of bed daily (intercept difference = 10.56%, 95% CI: [4.94, 16.18]; P < 0.001) post-intervention compared to pre-intervention. Hospital median LOS was significantly shorter during the intervention period (intercept difference = -3.45 days, 95% CI: [-6.67,-0.23], P = 0.0356) compared to pre-intervention. It continued to decrease post-intervention with significantly fewer days in hospital (intercept difference= -6.1, 95% CI: [-11,-1.2]; P = 0.015) in the post-intervention period compared to pre-intervention. Conclusions: this is a large-scale study evaluating an implementation strategy for early mobilisation in older, general medical inpatients. The positive outcome of this simple intervention on an important functional goal of getting more patients out of bed is a striking success for improving care for hospitalised older patients.

Are family physician visits and continuity of care associated with acute care use at end-of-life? A population-based cohort study of homecare cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Previous end-of-life cancer research has shown an association between increased family physician continuity of care and reduced use of acute care services; however, it did not focus on a homecare population or control for homecare nursing. AIM: Among end-of-life homecare cancer patients, to investigate the association of family physician continuity with location of death and hospital and emergency department visits in the last 2 weeks of life while controlling for nursing hours. DESIGN: Retrospective population-based cohort study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Cancer patients with ≥ 1 family physician visit in 2006 from Ontario, Canada. Family physician continuity of care was assessed using two measures: Modified Usual Provider of Care score and visits/week. Its association with location of death and hospital and emergency department visits in the last 2 weeks of life was examined using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 9467 patients identified, the Modified Usual Provider of Care score demonstrated a dose-response relationship with increasing continuity associated with decreased odds of hospital death and visiting the hospital and emergency department in the last 2 weeks of life. More family physician visits/week were associated with lower odds of an emergency department visit in the last 2 weeks of life and hospital death, except for patients with greater than 4 visits/week, where they had increased odds of hospitalizations and hospital deaths. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate an association between increased family physician continuity of care and decreased odds of several acute care outcomes in late life, controlling for homecare nursing and other covariates.

Mapping barriers and intervention activities to behaviour change theory for Mobilization of Vulnerable Elders in Ontario (MOVE ON), a multi-site implementation intervention in acute care hospitals.

BACKGROUND: As evidence-informed implementation interventions spread, they need to be tailored to address the unique needs of each setting, and this process should be well documented to facilitate replication. To facilitate the spread of the Mobilization of Vulnerable Elders in Ontario (MOVE ON) intervention, the aim of the current study is to develop a mapping guide that links identified barriers and intervention activities to behaviour change theory. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with front line health-care professionals to identify perceived barriers to implementation of an early mobilization intervention targeted to hospitalized older adults. Participating units then used or adapted intervention activities from an existing menu or developed new activities to facilitate early mobilization. A thematic analysis was performed on the focus group data, emphasizing concepts related to barriers to behaviour change. A behaviour change theory, the 'capability, opportunity, motivation-behaviour (COM-B) system', was used as a taxonomy to map the identified barriers to their root causes. We also mapped the behaviour constructs and intervention activities to overcome these. RESULTS: A total of 46 focus groups were conducted across 26 hospital inpatient units in Ontario, Canada, with 261 participants. The barriers were conceptualized at three levels: health-care provider (HCP), patient, and unit. Commonly mentioned barriers were time constraints and workload (HCP), patient clinical acuity and their perceived 'sick role' (patient), and lack of proper equipment and human resources (unit level). Thirty intervention activities to facilitate early mobilization of older adults were implemented across hospitals; examples of unit-developed intervention activities include the 'mobility clock' communication tool and the use of staff champions. A mapping guide was created with barriers and intervention activities matched though the lens of the COM-B system. CONCLUSIONS: We used a systematic approach to develop a guide, which maps barriers, intervention activities, and behaviour change constructs in order to tailor an implementation intervention to the local context. This approach allows implementers to identify potential strategies to overcome local-level barriers and to document adaptations.

Evaluation of a multisite educational intervention to improve mobilization of older patients in hospital: protocol for mobilization of vulnerable elders in Ontario (MOVE ON).

BACKGROUND: Functional decline is a common adverse outcome of hospitalization in older people. Often, this decline is not related to the illness that precipitated admission, but to the process of care delivered in hospital. The association between immobility and adverse consequences is well established, yet older inpatients spend significant amounts of time supine in bed. We aim to implement and evaluate the impact of an evidence-based strategy to promote early mobilization and prevent functional decline in older patients admitted to university-affiliated acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We will implement a multi-component educational intervention to support a change in practice to enhance mobilization of older patients. METHODS/DESIGN: Implementation of our early mobilization strategy is guided by the Knowledge to Action Cycle. Through focus groups with frontline staff, we will identify barriers and facilitators to early mobilization. We will tailor the intervention at each site to the identified barriers and facilitators, focusing on the following key messages: to complete a mobility assessment and care plan within 24 hours of the decision to admit patients aged 65 years and older; to achieve mobilization at least 3 times per day; and, to ensure that mobilization is scaled and progressive. The primary outcome, number of patients observed out of bed, will be documented three times per day (in the morning, at lunch and in the afternoon), two days each week. This data collection will occur over 3 phases: pre-implementation (10 weeks), implementation (8 weeks), and post-implementation (20 weeks). DISCUSSION: This is the first large, multisite study to evaluate the impact of a multi-component knowledge translation strategy on rates of mobilization of older patients in hospital. Our implementation is framed by the Knowledge to Action Cycle, and the intervention is being adapted to the local context. These unique features render our intervention approach more generalizable to multiple practice settings. Contextualization of the intervention has also facilitated engagement of participants from multiple hospitals. Upon completion of this study, we will better understand the barriers and facilitators to implementing an early mobilization strategy across a spectrum of hospitals, as well as the impact of a mobilization strategy.