Predicting Discharge Destination in Older People From Acute General Medical Wards: A Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of 23 Assessment Tools.

BACKGROUND: Predicting discharge in older people from general medicine wards is challenging. It requires consideration of function, mobility, and cognitive levels, which vary within the cohort and may fluctuate over a short period. A previous systematic review identified 23 assessment tools associated with discharge destination in this cohort; however, the psychometric properties of these tools have not been explored. PURPOSE: To evaluate, synthesize, and compare the psychometric properties of 23 assessment tools used to predict discharge destination from acute general medical wards. METHODS: Four databases were systematically searched: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Evidence-Based Medicine Review databases. Studies were included if participants were from general medicine or acute geriatric wards and investigated at least one psychometric property (reliability, internal consistency, measurement error, responsiveness, hypothesis testing, and structural or criterion validity) in 23 previously identified assessment tools. Data were extracted and methodological quality were assessed independently by 2 assessors using the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measure INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. As per the COSMIN checklist, results were rated against "sufficient," "insufficient," or "indeterminate." RESULTS: Forty-one studies were included. The de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) was the most rigorously evaluated assessment tool; it scored "sufficient" psychometric properties in 5 of 7 psychometric categories. The Alpha Functional Independence Measure (AlphaFIM), Barthel Index, and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) demonstrated "sufficient" psychometric properties in at least 3 psychometric categories. The remainder of the tools (n = 19, 83%) had "sufficient" psychometric properties in 2 or fewer psychometric categories. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, out of 23 assessment tools associated with discharge destination in acute general medicine, the DEMMI has the strongest psychometric properties. Other tools with substantial evidence in this cohort include the AlphaFIM, MMSE, and Barthel Index. Research is required to thoroughly evaluate the psychometric properties of the remaining tools, which have been insufficiently researched to date. Results can be used by physical therapists to guide selection of appropriate tools to assess mobility and predict discharge destination. TRIAL REGISTRATION: A priori, PROSPERO (CRD 42017064209).

Physical activity is low before and during hospitalisation: A secondary observational study in older Australian general medical patients.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify physical activity in patients prior to and during an acute general medical hospital admission and explore relationships between mobility, pre- and in-hospital physical activity. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-site secondary observational study conducted on general medical wards at a tertiary hospital. Prehospital physical activity was measured via the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE; scored 0-400); in-hospital physical activity was measured via accelerometry (time at metabolic equivalents [METs] > 1.5), and mobility was measured via the de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI). Associations were determined via Spearman's correlations. RESULTS: Forty-six participants were included: median age 81 [76-85] years, 59% female, DEMMI on admission 39 [30-49]. Prehospital physical activity was low (PASE median 27.1 [1.6-61.9]). In-hospital physical activity was also low (0.5 [0.2-1.5] hours per day being physically active and 54 [16-194] steps per day taken). No statistically significant relationships existed between pre- and in-hospital physical activity (Spearman's rho (ρ) 0.24, 95% CI -0.08-0.53, p = 0.07). However, physical activity levels in the pre- and in-hospital settings were positively associated with patients' mobility in-hospital (Spearman's ρ 0.44, 95% CI 0.15-0.67, p = 0.002; Spearman's ρ 0.40, 95% CI 0.08-0.645, p = 0.011 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity is low both before and during a general medical admission. Assessment of usual physical activity patterns should be part of the clinical assessment of patients in general medicine; however, the low activity levels observed indicate a need for valid and reliable tools suitable for an older, frail cohort. Findings will inform the development of physical activity guidelines during hospitalisation.

The Association of Changes in Physical Performance During Geriatric Inpatient Rehabilitation With Short-Term Hospital Readmission, Institutionalization, and Mortality: RESORT.

OBJECTIVES: Geriatric inpatient rehabilitation aims to restore function, marked by physical performance, to enable patients to return and remain home after hospitalization. However, after discharge some patients are soon readmitted, institutionalized, or may die. Whether changes in physical performance during geriatric rehabilitation are associated with these short-term adverse outcomes is unknown. This study aimed to determine the association of changes in physical performance during geriatric inpatient rehabilitation with short-term adverse outcomes. DESIGN: Observational longitudinal study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Geriatric rehabilitation inpatients of the REStORing health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT) cohort study of the Royal Melbourne Hospital (Melbourne, Australia) were included. METHODS: The change from admission to discharge in the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score, balance, gait speed (GS), chair stand test (CST), and hand grip strength (HGS) were calculated and analyzed using logistic regression analysis with readmission, incidence of institutionalization, and mortality, and ≥1 adverse outcome within 3 months postdischarge. RESULTS: Of 693 inpatients, 11 died during hospitalization and 572 patients (mean age 82.6 ± 7.6 years, 57.9% female) had available physical performance data. Within 3 months postdischarge, 47.3% of patients had ≥1 adverse outcome: readmission was 20.8%, institutionalization was 26.6%, and mortality was 7.9%. Improved SPPB score, balance, GS, CST, and HGS were associated with lower odds of institutionalization and mortality. Improved GS was additionally associated with lower odds of readmission [odds ratio (OR) 0.35, 95% CI 0.16-0.79]. CST score had the largest effect, with a 1-point increase associating with 40% lower odds of being institutionalized (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.86), 52% lower odds of mortality (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.81), and a 24% lower odds of ≥1 adverse outcome (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.97). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Improvement in physical performance was associated with lower odds of short-term institutionalization and mortality indicating the prognostic value of physical performance improvement during geriatric inpatient rehabilitation.

SARC-F Is Inaccurate to Identify Geriatric Rehabilitation Inpatients at Risk for Sarcopenia: RESORT.

INTRODUCTION: Sarcopenia is highly prevalent in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients; screening using the Strength, Assistance in walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs, Falls history questionnaire (SARC-F) has been recommended. This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the SARC-F in identifying sarcopenia according to the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP), EWGSOP2, and Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) definitions in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients. METHODS: REStOring health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT) is an observational, longitudinal cohort of geriatric rehabilitation inpatients. The SARC-F was completed for 2 time-points, status at preadmission (1 month before admission) and at admission; a score ≥4 was considered at risk for sarcopenia. Muscle mass (bioelectrical impedance analysis), handgrip strength (handheld dynamometry), and gait speed (4-m walk test) were measured at admission. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: The sarcopenia prevalence (n = 290, median age 84.0 years [IQR 79.0-89.0], 56.9% female) was 40.3% (EWGSOP1), 25.4% (EWGSOP2), and 38.8% (AWGS). For preadmission and admission status, respectively, the SARC-F identified 67.9 and 82.1% (EWGSOP), 66.0 and 81.0% (EWGSOP2), and 67.5 and 81.6% (AWGS) inpatients at risk for sarcopenia. The SARC-F showed fair sensitivity (67-74%), poor specificity (32-37%), and poor AUC (0.411-0.474) to identify inpatients at risk for sarcopenia at preadmission status, and fair-good sensitivity (79-84%), poor specificity (17-20%), and poor AUC (0.401-0.432) to identify inpatients at risk for sarcopenia at admission, according to EWGSOP, EWGSOP2, and AWGS definitions. CONCLUSION: The SARC-F showed poor diagnostic accuracy in identifying sarcopenia in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients. Assessment of sarcopenia is recommended without screening.

Assessment tools and factors used to predict discharge from acute general medical wards: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To identify assessment tools and patient factors statistically associated with discharge destination in general medical inpatients. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. Four electronic databases were searched. Studies were eligible if they were a quantitative study design, had adult acute general medical inpatients and published in English. Outcomes of interest were tools or factors with statistical correlations with discharge destination (home, subacute or residential care). Articles were screened by two independent assessors. Data were extracted by one reviewer and independently checked by a second reviewer. Data were analysed/described descriptively. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included. Twenty-three tools and 44 factors were identified, which spanned Health Condition, Body Structure and Function, Activity, Participation, Environment and Personal concepts of the World Health Organisation International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (WHO ICF). CONCLUSIONS: The large number of tools and factors found and their distribution across several WHO ICF concepts exemplifies the complexities of predicting discharge. No single assessment tool that best predicts discharge destination was identified, but rather there were a variety of potential tools identified. Further research is needed to determine the psychometric properties of the identified assessment tools as well as additional predictors of subacute care (including rehabilitation). This is important as it may allow for timely clinical decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: A priori, PROSPERO (CRD42017064209).IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThis systematic review identified a large number of assessment tools and patient factors associated with discharge destination (home, subacute and residential care) in general medical inpatients.All of the domains of the WHO ICF framework are associated with discharge destination and must be considered.Clinicians in the acute setting can use these findings to assist selection of assessment tools to identify patients likely to need rehabilitation or subacute care.Early identification of patients who are unable to return to their place of residence is essential as it allows for provision of early rehabilitation and subsequent discharge planning.

Determinants of instrumented sedentary and physical activity behavior in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients: RESORT.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity in hospitalized older adults is highly prevalent and associated with detrimental health outcomes. Understanding its determinants is important for prognosis and tailoring interventions in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients. METHODS: Within the REStORing health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT) observational, longitudinal cohort, geriatric rehabilitation inpatients wore an inertial sensor (ActivPAL4) for one week to objectively assess instrumented sedentary behavior (i-SB) and physical activity (i-PA). Determinants were grouped in five geriatric domains: morbidity, cognition/psychology, physical performance, functional performance, and nutritional status. Their association with i-SB (mean sitting, lying, non-upright time) and i-PA (mean number of steps, sit-to-stand transitions and upright time) quintiles were examined using multivariate ordinal logistic regression analyses with Bonferroni correction (p < 0.006). RESULTS: A total of 145 inpatients were included (mean age 83.0, SD 7.7 years; 55.9% females). More comorbidities were associated with a lower daily number of steps (OR:0.91, 95%CI: 0.86-0.96) and lower upright time (OR:0.93, 95%CI: 0.88-0.98). Depressive symptoms (higher Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score) were associated with higher non-upright time (OR: 1.12, 95%CI: 1.03-1.21) and lower upright time (OR: 0.89, 95%CI: 0.83-0.96). Better physical performance (higher Functional Ambulation Classification, gait speed, and Short Physical Performance Battery score) was associated with lower i-SB measures (OR range: 0.07-0.78, p < 0.0005) and higher i-PA measures (OR range: 1.35-19.50, p < 0.0005). Higher functional performance (Katz index of Activities of Daily Living score) was associated with lower i-SB measures (OR range: 0.61-0.69, p ≤ 0.003) and higher i-PA measures (OR range: 1.60-3.64, p < 0.0005). Being malnourished was associated with lower i-PA measures (OR range: 0.29-0.32, p ≤ 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Worse morbidity, depressive symptoms, worse physical and functional performance, and worse nutritional status were associated with higher i-SB and lower i-PA. These determinants should be taken into account while designing and promoting multidisciplinary physical activity interventions.

Geriatric Rehabilitation Inpatients Roam at Home! A Matched Cohort Study of Objectively Measured Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Home-Based and Hospital-Based Settings.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behavior in geriatric rehabilitation patients receiving care in the home-based compared to the hospital-based setting. DESIGN: Observational matched cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Home-based (patient's home) or hospital-based (ward) geriatric rehabilitation was delivered to inpatients within the REStORing health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT) observational, longitudinal cohort of the Royal Melbourne Hospital (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia). METHODS: Patients were asked to wear ActivPAL4 accelerometers for 1 week and were assessed by a comprehensive geriatric assessment at admission, discharge, and followed up after 3 months. Hospital-based patients were matched to home-based patients for sex and baseline physical function [Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), activities (instrumental) of daily living, and Clinical Frailty Scale]. Differences in patient characteristics and physical activity (total, standing and walking durations, number of steps and sit-to stand transitions) and sedentary behavior (total, sitting and lying durations) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients were included: 18 home-based [mean age: 81.9 ± 8.6 years, 38.9% female, median (interquartile range [IQR]) SPPB: 7.0 (5.0-9.0)] and 141 hospital-based [mean age: 82.9 ± 7.8 years, 57.4% female, median (IQR) SPPB: 1.0 (0.0-4.0)] patients, of whom 18 were matched [mean age: 80.1 ± 7.4 years, 38.9% female, median (IQR) SPPB: 6.5 (4.8-10.0)]. Median physical activity measures were consistently higher in home-based patients compared to the total group of hospital-based patients. After matching, physical activity measures remained >2.4 times higher and were significantly different for all measures (total physical activity, standing and walking durations, and steps) except for sit-to-stand transitions. Sedentary behaviors were similar with home-based patients spending non-significantly more time sitting but significantly less time lying than hospital-based patients (matched and total). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Home-based inpatients are more physically active than hospital-based inpatients independent of matching for sex and baseline physical function, which supports home-based geriatric rehabilitation.

Factors Associated With Discharge Destination in Community-Dwelling Adults Admitted to Acute General Medical Units.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: General medical patients often present to the hospital with medical, social, cognitive, and functional issues that may impact discharge destination. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between patient factors at hospital admission and discharge destination in general medical patients. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-site observational study conducted on the general medical wards at a tertiary hospital. Inpatients admitted to the general medical unit and referred to physical therapy were included. Patients admitted from residential care were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were collected a median of 2 days (interquartile range: 1-3) from hospital admission and included demographics, comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index), premorbid physical function (Blaylock Risk Assessment Screening Score, BRASS), current function (de Morton Mobility Index, DEMMI and Alpha Functional Independence Measure, AlphaFIM), and cognition (Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale, RUDAS). RESULTS: Between July 2016 and August 2017, 417 patients were recruited (53% female, median age: 81 years (interquartile range: 76-86). Of these, 245 patients were discharged directly home; 172 were not discharged home of whom 140 were discharged to a subacute temporary facility providing further opportunity for therapy and discharge planning. Patients discharged directly home had higher functional, mobility, and cognitive scores. Data were partitioned into training, validation, and test sets to provide unbiased estimates of sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic curve, and area under the curve. Models best associated with discharge were "DEMMI and toilet transfers" (sensitivity 82.1%, specificity 66.2%, area under the curve 83.8%, 95% confidence interval: 76.4-91.2) and "AlphaFIM and walking independence" (sensitivity: 66.7%, specificity: 83.1%, area under the curve: 81.5, 95% confidence interval: 73.2-89.7). CONCLUSION: Two models were created that differentiated between discharge home and not home and had similar statistical measures of validity. Although the models require further validation, clinicians should consider whether identification of patients likely to be discharged home or not home is of greater relevance for their clinical setting.