Premium
Unsteadiness Reported by Older Hospitalized Patients Predicts Functional Decline
Author(s) -
Lindenberger Elizabeth C.,
Landefeld C. Seth,
Sands Laura P.,
Counsell Steven R.,
Fortinsky Richard H.,
Palmer Robert M.,
Kresevic Denise M.,
Covinsky Kenneth E.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
journal of the american geriatrics society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.992
H-Index - 232
eISSN - 1532-5415
pISSN - 0002-8614
DOI - 10.1034/j.1600-0579.2003.00205.x
Subject(s) - medicine , activities of daily living , confidence interval , cohort , odds ratio , hospital admission , cohort study , prospective cohort study , geriatrics , physical therapy , emergency medicine , pediatrics , psychiatry
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a simple question about steadiness at admission predicts in‐hospital functional decline and whether unsteadiness at admission predicts failure of in‐hospital functional recovery of patients who have declined immediately before hospitalization. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: One university hospital and one community teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand five hundred fifty‐seven hospitalized medical patients aged 70 and older. MEASUREMENTS: On admission, patients reported their steadiness with walking and whether they could perform independently each of five basic activities of daily living (ADLs) at admission and 2 weeks before admission (baseline). For the primary analysis, the outcome was decline in ADL function between admission and discharge. For the secondary analysis, the outcome was in‐hospital recovery to baseline ADL function in patients who experienced ADL decline in the 2 weeks before admission. RESULTS: In the primary cohort (n = 1,557), 25% of patients were very unsteady at admission; 22% of very unsteady patients declined during hospitalization, compared with 17%, 18%, and 10% for slightly unsteady, slightly steady, and very steady patients, respectively ( P for trend = .001). After adjusting for age; medical comorbidities; Acute Physiology, Age, and Chronic Health Evaluation II score; and admission ADL, unsteadiness remained significantly associated with ADL decline (odds for decline for very unsteady compared with very steady = 2.6, 95% confidence interval = 1.5–4.5). In the secondary analysis, predicting ADL recovery in patients who declined before hospitalization (n = 563), 46% of patients were very unsteady at admission. In this cohort, 44% of very unsteady patients failed to recover, compared with 35%, 36%, and 33% for each successively higher level of steadiness, respectively ( P for trend = 0.06). After multivariate adjustment, greater unsteadiness independently predicted failure of recovery ( P for trend = 0.02). CONCLUSION: A simple question about steadiness identified patients at increased risk for in‐hospital ADL decline and, in patients who lost ADL function immediately before admission, failure to recover.