Alicja M Baczynska1,2,3,4, Stephen Er Lim5,6, Avan A Sayer5,7,8,6,9, Helen C Roberts5,7,8,6. 1. Academic Geriatric Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. a.baczynska@soton.ac.uk. 2. NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. a.baczynska@soton.ac.uk. 3. University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. a.baczynska@soton.ac.uk. 4. NIHR CLAHRC Wessex, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. a.baczynska@soton.ac.uk. 5. Academic Geriatric Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 6. NIHR CLAHRC Wessex, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 7. NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 8. University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. 9. Newcastle University Institute of Ageing and Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To review current evidence for the use of volunteers to mobilise older acute medical in-patients. BACKGROUND: Immobility in hospital is associated with poor healthcare outcomes in older people, but maintaining mobility is frequently compromised due to time pressures experienced by clinical staff. Volunteers are established in many hospitals, usually involved in indirect patient care. Recent evidence suggests that trained mealtime volunteers had a positive impact on patients and hospital staff. It is unclear whether volunteers can help older inpatients to mobilise. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We searched Cochrane, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and Google databases using MeSH headings and keywords within six key themes: inpatients, older, mobility/exercise, delirium, falls and volunteers. Full texts of relevant articles were retrieved and reference lists reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 2428 articles that were identified, two scientific studies and three reports on quality improvement initiatives were included in the final review. One study included volunteer assisted mobilisation as part of a delirium prevention intervention (HELP). The second study has not reported yet (MOVE ON). The contribution of volunteers in both is unclear. Three quality improvement initiatives trained volunteers to help mobilise patients. They were not formally evaluated but report positive effects of the volunteers on patient and staff satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: This review has identified a lack of scientific evidence for the use of volunteers in mobilising older medical inpatients, but quality improvement initiatives suggest that volunteers can be employed in this role with reports of staff and patient satisfaction: this is an area for further development and evaluation. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review outlines the evidence for the involvement of volunteers in maintaining patients' mobility, identifies mobilisation protocols that have been used, the need to train volunteers and for formal evaluation of volunteers in this role. Prospero registration number: CRD42014010388.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To review current evidence for the use of volunteers to mobilise older acute medical in-patients. BACKGROUND: Immobility in hospital is associated with poor healthcare outcomes in older people, but maintaining mobility is frequently compromised due to time pressures experienced by clinical staff. Volunteers are established in many hospitals, usually involved in indirect patient care. Recent evidence suggests that trained mealtime volunteers had a positive impact on patients and hospital staff. It is unclear whether volunteers can help older inpatients to mobilise. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We searched Cochrane, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and Google databases using MeSH headings and keywords within six key themes: inpatients, older, mobility/exercise, delirium, falls and volunteers. Full texts of relevant articles were retrieved and reference lists reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 2428 articles that were identified, two scientific studies and three reports on quality improvement initiatives were included in the final review. One study included volunteer assisted mobilisation as part of a delirium prevention intervention (HELP). The second study has not reported yet (MOVE ON). The contribution of volunteers in both is unclear. Three quality improvement initiatives trained volunteers to help mobilise patients. They were not formally evaluated but report positive effects of the volunteers on patient and staff satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: This review has identified a lack of scientific evidence for the use of volunteers in mobilising older medical inpatients, but quality improvement initiatives suggest that volunteers can be employed in this role with reports of staff and patient satisfaction: this is an area for further development and evaluation. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review outlines the evidence for the involvement of volunteers in maintaining patients' mobility, identifies mobilisation protocols that have been used, the need to train volunteers and for formal evaluation of volunteers in this role. Prospero registration number: CRD42014010388.
Authors: Martina A Maggioni; Paolo Castiglioni; Giampiero Merati; Katharina Brauns; Hanns-Christian Gunga; Stefan Mendt; Oliver S Opatz; Lea C Rundfeldt; Mathias Steinach; Anika Werner; Alexander C Stahn Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Kerry Kuluski; Julia W Ho; Lauren Cadel; Sara Shearkhani; Charissa Levy; Michelle Marcinow; Allie Peckham; Jane Sandercock; Donald J Willison; Sara Jt Guilcher Journal: Health Expect Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Karolina Piotrowicz; Krzysztof Rewiuk; Stanisław Górski; Weronika Kałwak; Barbara Wizner; Agnieszka Pac; Michał Nowakowski; Tomasz Grodzicki Journal: Trials Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Mary Godfrey; John Green; Jane Smith; Francine Cheater; Sharon K Inouye; Keith Hurst; John Young Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2019-12-31 Impact factor: 3.921