Objective: To evaluate the preliminary effectiveness of a goal-directed movement intervention using a movement sensor on physical activity of hospitalized patients. Design: Prospective, pre-post study. Setting: A university medical center. Participants: Patients admitted to the pulmonology and nephrology/gastro-enterology wards. Intervention: The movement intervention consisted of (1) self-monitoring of patients' physical activity, (2) setting daily movement goals and (3) posters with exercises and walking routes. Physical activity was measured with a movement sensor (PAM AM400) which measures active minutes per day. Main measures: Primary outcome was the mean difference in active minutes per day pre- and post-implementation. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, discharge destination, immobility-related complications, physical functioning, perceived difficulty to move, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality and the adoption of the intervention. Results: A total of 61 patients was included pre-implementation, and a total of 56 patients was included post-implementation. Pre-implementation, patients were active 38 ± 21 minutes (mean ± SD) per day, and post-implementation 50 ± 31 minutes per day (Δ12, P = 0.031). Perceived difficulty to move decreased from 3.4 to 1.7 (0-10) (Δ1.7, P = 0.008). No significant differences were found in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions: The goal-directed movement intervention seems to increase physical activity levels during hospitalization. Therefore, this intervention might be useful for other hospitals to stimulate inpatient physical activity.
Background: There is a lack of evidence regarding the relationship between family involvement and outcomes in gastrointestinal oncology patients after surgery. To evaluate the effect of a family involvement program for patients undergoing oncologic gastrointestinal surgery on unplanned readmissions within 30 days after surgery. Methods: A multicenter patient-preference cohort study compared 2 groups: patients who participated in the family involvement program versus usual care. The program comprised involvement of family caregivers in care and training of health care professionals in family-centered care. Multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate the effect of the FIP on the number of unplanned readmissions up to 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included complications sensitive to fundamental care activities, emergency department visits, intensive care unit admissions, hospital length of stay, and the need for professional home care after discharge. Results: Of the 301 patients included, 152 chose the family involvement program, and 149 chose usual care. Postoperative readmissions occurred in 25 (16.4%) patients in the family involvement program group, and 15 (10.1%) in the usual care group (P = .11). A significant reduction of 16.2% was observed in the need for professional home care after discharge in the family involvement program group (P < .01). No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in the other secondary outcomes. Conclusion: The family involvement program did not reduce the number of unplanned readmissions, but it led to a substantial reduction in-home care, which suggests an economic benefit from a societal perspective. Implementation of the family involvement program should, therefore, be considered in clinical practice.
MULTIFILE
PURPOSE: We investigated changes in ARDS severity and associations with outcome in COVID-19 ARDS patients.METHODS: We compared outcomes in patients with ARDS classified as 'mild', 'moderate' or 'severe' at calendar day 1, and after reclassification at calendar day 2. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. We also identified which ventilatory parameters had an association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. We repeated the analysis for reclassification at calendar day 4.RESULTS: Of 895 patients, 8.5%, 60.1% and 31.4% had mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1. These proportions were 13.5%, 72.6% and 13.9% at day 2. 28-day mortality was 25.3%, 31.3% and 32.0% in patients with mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1 (p = 0.537), compared to 28.6%, 29.2% and 44.3% in patients reclassified at day 2 (p = 0.005). No ventilatory parameter had an independent association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. Findings were not different reclassifying at day 4.CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of COVID-19 patients, ARDS severity and mortality between severity classes changed substantially over the first 4 days of ventilation. These findings are important, as reclassification could help identify target patients that may benefit from alternative approaches.
MULTIFILE
