Songprod Jonathan Lorgunpai1,2,3, Bruce Finke4, Isaac Burrows4,5, Cynthia J Brown6,7, Fred H Rubin8, Heidi R Wierman9,10, Susan J Heisey11, Sarah Gartaganis12, Shari M Ling4, Matthew Press13, Sharon K Inouye2,3,12. 1. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Division of Gerontology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 5. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, Bloomfield, Connecticut, USA. 6. Division of Gerontology, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA. 7. Birmingham/Atlanta Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Care Center, Veterans Affairs, Birmingham, Alabama, USA. 8. Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Shadyside, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 9. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine, USA. 10. Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 11. Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia, USA. 12. Aging Brain Center, Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 13. University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: To describe the Mobility Action Group (MACT), an innovative process to enhance implementation of hospital mobility programs and create a culture of mobility in acute care. DESIGN: Continuous quality improvement intervention with episodic data review. SETTING: Inpatient units including medical, surgical, and intensive care settings. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 42 hospitals of varying sizes across the United States. INTERVENTIONS: The MACT and Change Package were developed to provide a conceptual framework, road map, and step-by-step guide to enable mobility teams to implement mobility programs successfully and meet their mobilization goals. Participants were encouraged to select two to three change tactics to pursue during the first action cycle and select and implement additional tactics in subsequent cycles. Nine learning sessions were held via webinar from April 27, 2017, to October 5, 2017, during which faculty provided brief presentations, facilitation, and group discussion. MEASUREMENTS: Implementation of programs, walks per day, use of bed and chair alarms, and participant satisfaction. RESULTS: Successful implementation of mobility programs was achieved at most (76%) sites. The proportion of patients who received at least three walks per day increased from 9% to 19%. The proportion of patients who were placed on a bed or chair alarm decreased from 36% to 20%. On average, 69% of participants reported they were "strongly satisfied" with the learning sessions. Most participants found the Change Package (58%) and Toolkit (63%) "very helpful." Since the conclusion of the active initiative, the Change Package has been downloaded 1,200 times. Of those who downloaded it, 48% utilized it to establish a mobility program, and 58% used it at their organization at least once a month. CONCLUSION: The MACT and Change Package provides an innovative approach emphasizing systemwide change that can help catalyze a culture of mobility in hospitals across the nation, improving the quality of care for hospitalized older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:2373-2381, 2020.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: To describe the Mobility Action Group (MACT), an innovative process to enhance implementation of hospital mobility programs and create a culture of mobility in acute care. DESIGN: Continuous quality improvement intervention with episodic data review. SETTING: Inpatient units including medical, surgical, and intensive care settings. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 42 hospitals of varying sizes across the United States. INTERVENTIONS: The MACT and Change Package were developed to provide a conceptual framework, road map, and step-by-step guide to enable mobility teams to implement mobility programs successfully and meet their mobilization goals. Participants were encouraged to select two to three change tactics to pursue during the first action cycle and select and implement additional tactics in subsequent cycles. Nine learning sessions were held via webinar from April 27, 2017, to October 5, 2017, during which faculty provided brief presentations, facilitation, and group discussion. MEASUREMENTS: Implementation of programs, walks per day, use of bed and chair alarms, and participant satisfaction. RESULTS: Successful implementation of mobility programs was achieved at most (76%) sites. The proportion of patients who received at least three walks per day increased from 9% to 19%. The proportion of patients who were placed on a bed or chair alarm decreased from 36% to 20%. On average, 69% of participants reported they were "strongly satisfied" with the learning sessions. Most participants found the Change Package (58%) and Toolkit (63%) "very helpful." Since the conclusion of the active initiative, the Change Package has been downloaded 1,200 times. Of those who downloaded it, 48% utilized it to establish a mobility program, and 58% used it at their organization at least once a month. CONCLUSION: The MACT and Change Package provides an innovative approach emphasizing systemwide change that can help catalyze a culture of mobility in hospitals across the nation, improving the quality of care for hospitalized older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:2373-2381, 2020.
Authors: Tammy T Hshieh; Jirong Yue; Esther Oh; Margaret Puelle; Sarah Dowal; Thomas Travison; Sharon K Inouye Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Heidi L Wald; Ravishankar Ramaswamy; Michael H Perskin; Lloyd Roberts; Michael Bogaisky; Winnie Suen; Anna Mikhailovich Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Robert K Lord; Christopher R Mayhew; Radha Korupolu; Earl C Mantheiy; Michael A Friedman; Jeffrey B Palmer; Dale M Needham Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Cynthia J Brown; Kathleen T Foley; John D Lowman; Paul A MacLennan; Javad Razjouyan; Bijan Najafi; Julie Locher; Richard M Allman Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: William D Schweickert; Mark C Pohlman; Anne S Pohlman; Celerina Nigos; Amy J Pawlik; Cheryl L Esbrook; Linda Spears; Megan Miller; Mietka Franczyk; Deanna Deprizio; Gregory A Schmidt; Amy Bowman; Rhonda Barr; Kathryn E McCallister; Jesse B Hall; John P Kress Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Susanne Hempel; Sydne Newberry; Zhen Wang; Marika Booth; Roberta Shanman; Breanne Johnsen; Victoria Shier; Debra Saliba; William D Spector; David A Ganz Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-03-25 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Maura Kennedy; Margaret Webb; Sarah Gartaganis; Ula Hwang; Kevin Biese; Amy Stuck; Adriane Lesser; Tammy Hshieh; Sharon K Inouye Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2021-04-29
Authors: Mary Hannan; Eileen G Collins; Shane A Phillips; Lauretta Quinn; Alana D Steffen; Ulf G Bronas Journal: J Gerontol Nurs Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 1.436