DOS 2016

218

· DOS Abstracts

Barthel-100 and the Cumulated Ambulation Score

are superior to the de Morton Mobility Index for

the assessment of mobility in patients with acute

hip fracture

Signe Hulsbæk, Rikke Faebo Larsen, Morten Tange Kristensen

Department of Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy, Zealand University

Hospital; Department of Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy, Zealand

University Hospital; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Research –

Copenhagen (PMR-C), Departments of Physical Therapy and Orthopedic

Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre

Background:

An increasing number of settings organize their treatment of

acute hip fracture patients (HF) in orthogeriatric or geriatric units. This means

that e.g. data of functional capacity of HF patients is reported to the Danish

hip fracture database using the Cumulated Ambulation Score (CAS), but also

to the corresponding Danish database of geriatrics using the Barthel-100 and

30-s Chair- Stand-Test (CST). Further, a new score for assessing mobility; de

Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) was recently added to the geriatric database

and thereby also used for patients with acute HF, although not validated in that

context.

Purpose / Aim of Study:

To examine the validity of DEMMI in patients with HF

in comparison with the existing Barthel-100, CST and CAS.

Materials and Methods:

222 consecutive patients (57 nursing home resi-

dents) with HF admitted to a Geriatric Department following surgery were as-

sessed with the 4 measurements on day 1 and at discharge (mean LOS post-

surgery 9 days (SD 5.1)).

Findings / Results:

98% and 89% of patients were not able to perform the

CST at baseline and at discharge (large floor effect), respectively. Corresponding

floor effects were 39% and 31% for DEMMI, 12% and 5% for Barthel-100, and

22% and 6%, respectively for CAS. Convergent validity was strong between

DEMMI and CAS (r=0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.81), and moderate between DEMMI

and Barthel (r=0.58, 95% CI 0.48- 0.66). Responsiveness, as indicated by

the Effect Size was 0.76 for DEMMI, 1.78 for Barthel-100 and 1.04 for CAS.

Baseline scores of DEMMI, Barthel and CAS showed similar properties in pre-

dicting discharge destination of patients from own home.

Conclusions:

Dealing with 4 outcome measures in short hospital stays is time-

consuming. The value of using DEMMI and CST in patients with acute HF seems

limited in comparison with Barthel-100 and CAS, and therefore should be re-

evaluated.

No conflicts of interest reported

169.