Reference Standard for the Measurement of Loss of Autonomy and Functional Capacities in Long-Term Care Facilities.

The vast majority of people living in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are octogenarians (i.e., in Québec, 57.4% of the residents are age 85 or older, 26.2% are between age 75 and 84, 10.7% are between age 65 and 74, and 5.7% are below age 65 (1)), who are affected by a great loss of physical or cognitive autonomy due to illnesses and are unable to maintain their independence, safety and mobility at home. For the majority of them, their last living environment will be a LTCF. Moreover, the annual turnover in LTCFs is one-third of all residents (2) while the average length of stay is 823 days (1). Therefore the main challenges for caregivers in LTCFs are the maintenance of functional capacities and preventing patients from becoming bedridden and isolated. Measuring the level of autonomy and functional capacities is therefore a key element in the care of institutionalized people. Several validated tools are available to quantify the degree of dependence and the functional capacities of older people living in long-term care facilities. This narrative review aims to present the characteristics of the specific population living in long-term care facilities and describe the most widely used and validated tools to measure their level of autonomy and functional capacities.

Online physical exercise intervention in older adults during lockdown: Can we improve the recipe?

BACKGROUND: Recorded and live online physical exercise (PE) interventions are known to provide health benefits. However, the effects of prioritizing the number of live or recorded sessions remain unclear. AIMS: To explore which recorded-live sessions ratio leads to the best implementation and benefits in older adults. METHODS: Forty-six community-dwelling adults (> 60y.o.) were randomized into two groups completing a 12-week online PE intervention. Each group had a different ratio of live-recorded online sessions as follows: Live-Recorded-Live sessions (LRL; n = 22) vs. Recorded-Live-Recorded sessions (RLR; n = 24). RESULTS: Drop-out rates did not reach significance (LRL:14% vs. RLR: 29%, p = 0.20), and adherence was similar (> 85%) between groups. Both groups reported similar levels of satisfaction (> 70%), enjoyment (> 75%), and perceived exertion (> 60%). Both groups increased physical health and functional capacities, with greater improvements in muscle power (LRL: LRL: + 35 ± 16.1% vs. RLR: + 7 ± 13.9%; p = 0.010) and endurance (LRL: + 34.7 ± 15.4 vs. RLR: + 27.0 ± 26.5, p < 0.001) in the LRL group. DISCUSSION: Both online PE intervention modalities were adapted to the participants' capacities and led to a high level of enjoyment and retention. The greater physical improvements observed in the LRL group are likely due to the higher presence of the instructor compared to the RLR group. Indeed, participants received likely more feedback to appropriately adjust postures and movements, increasing the quality of the exercises. CONCLUSION: When creating online PE interventions containing both recorded and live sessions, priority should be given to maximizing the number of live sessions and not the number of recorded sessions.

Assessing Physical Performance in Older Adults during Isolation or Lockdown Periods: Web-Based Video Conferencing as a Solution.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face assessments were limited. Fortunately, older adults have access to web-technology (60%). Thus, we aimed to explore if assessing physical performance remotely is as reliable and valid as in person. At the end of the first lockdown, 15 older adults agreed to perform two similar evaluations in remote and face-to-face conditions. Functional capacities [5-repetitions Sit-to-Stand (STS); unipodal balance, 4-m walking speed (normal (NWS); fast (FWS)), 3-m Timed-Up and Go (normal (nTUG); fast (fTUG))] and muscle power and endurance were assessed. Fast walking speed was moderately reliable. Unipodal balance, NWS and nTUG were highly reliable (ICC>0.7). fTUG, STS, muscle endurance and power were extremely reliable (ICC>0.9). For absolute reliability, SEM varied from 15.54 to 5.14%. Finally, the MDC varied from 43.07 to 14.21%. Assessing functional capacities and muscle function remotely is as reliable and valid as a face-to-face assessment and should be considered as a clinical practice.

Potential Efficacy of Pragmatic Exercise Program (SPRINT) during Hospitalization in Older Adults on Health Care and Physical Performance: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Immobilization contribute to iatrogenic decline in hospitalized older adult. Implementing physical activity (PA) seems to be one of the best and easy solution. However, PA interventions are poorly integrated into usual care and those available are either non-specific, need supervision or requested human/material resources. Thus, we aimed to assess the effect of a pragmatic, unsupervised, and specific PA program (SPRINT) on health care practice and functional capacities in hospitalized older patients. DESIGN: Single arm interventional pragmatic pilot study. SETTING: Geriatric Assessment Unit (GAU). PARTICIPANTS: Of the 39 patients (> 65 years) hospitalized in a GAU and eligible, 19 agreed to participate (AP) and 20 declined (N-AP). INTERVENTION: One of the 4 PA programs, developed by our team, was allocated according to mobility profile. Individual functional capacities (i.e. balance, walking speed, functional mobility profile (PFMP)), active time (METS> 1.5: min), length of hospitalization (LOS), discharge orientation were assessed at admission and discharge of GAU. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were comparable. At discharge, the AP group improved more on walking speed (0.57 ± 0.21 vs. 0.64 ± 0.19; p = 0.013), Berg balance scale (41.8 ± 13.7 vs. 45.1 ± 9.7; p = 0.017) and PFMP (54.0 ± 7.1 vs 55.1 ± 5.5; p = 0.042) than the N-AP group. The LOS was significantly shorter in AP group compared to the N-AP group (5 vs. 36 days; p = 0.026) and more subjects in the AP group were oriented at home without health or social services (89.5 vs. 60%; p=0.065). CONCLUSION: SPRINT appears effective to counteract iatrogenic decline and decreased the LOS. Moreover, this simple pragmatic PA tool seems to improve the life trajectory and healthcare practice in aging population. Further researches are needed to confirm these promising pragmatic results.