Hospital 4Ms: Documentation and association with patient characteristics.

Sarah A Welch, Kristin R Archer, Alicia M Hymel, Jacquelyn S Pennings, Andrea Wershof Schwartz, Christy Kang, Edward T Qian, Maria C Duggan, Christianne L Roumie
{"title":"Hospital 4Ms: Documentation and association with patient characteristics.","authors":"Sarah A Welch, Kristin R Archer, Alicia M Hymel, Jacquelyn S Pennings, Andrea Wershof Schwartz, Christy Kang, Edward T Qian, Maria C Duggan, Christianne L Roumie","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>For the thousands of health systems recognized as Age-Friendly, considerable progress has been made to integrate 4Ms into clinical care. This study evaluated associations between 4Ms documentation and patient characteristics in an inpatient setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective cohort, hospitalizations included were from patients in an Acute Care for Elders (ACE) unit where the 4Ms were adopted and implemented. Each M (What Matters, Medication, Mentation, and Mobility) was stratified into three categories (not documented, partly documented, and fully documented) reflecting \"assessment\" and \"action\" clinical care processes. Electronic health records were reviewed for patient and hospitalization characteristics. Descriptive statistics evaluated these characteristics across categories of each M.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 620 hospital encounters (573 patients) included in the cohort. Patients had a median age of 80 years [IQR 76, 86] and 85% were White. Of all 4Ms, What Matters had the lowest documentation with 413 (67%) of encounters falling into the not documented group. Medication had the highest documentation with 453 (73%) of encounters in the fully documented group. Significant differences in documentation were associated with age and partly versus fully documented Mobility (80 [76, 86] and 82 [77, 88] (p = 0.019)). Hospital length of stay was differentially associated with documentation of all 4M categories. Initial mobility scores were associated with not versus partly documented Medication (6 [2, 7] and 2 [2, 6] (p = 0.041)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We developed a structured way to categorize \"assessment\" and \"action\" 4Ms care processes reflective of three documentation categories in the hospital (not, partly, and fully) and identified important patient and hospital characteristics associated with each. These results offer opportunities for future improvement efforts and insight to which characteristics may be important to measure with wider 4Ms adoption and uptake.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: For the thousands of health systems recognized as Age-Friendly, considerable progress has been made to integrate 4Ms into clinical care. This study evaluated associations between 4Ms documentation and patient characteristics in an inpatient setting.

Methods: In this prospective cohort, hospitalizations included were from patients in an Acute Care for Elders (ACE) unit where the 4Ms were adopted and implemented. Each M (What Matters, Medication, Mentation, and Mobility) was stratified into three categories (not documented, partly documented, and fully documented) reflecting "assessment" and "action" clinical care processes. Electronic health records were reviewed for patient and hospitalization characteristics. Descriptive statistics evaluated these characteristics across categories of each M.

Results: There were 620 hospital encounters (573 patients) included in the cohort. Patients had a median age of 80 years [IQR 76, 86] and 85% were White. Of all 4Ms, What Matters had the lowest documentation with 413 (67%) of encounters falling into the not documented group. Medication had the highest documentation with 453 (73%) of encounters in the fully documented group. Significant differences in documentation were associated with age and partly versus fully documented Mobility (80 [76, 86] and 82 [77, 88] (p = 0.019)). Hospital length of stay was differentially associated with documentation of all 4M categories. Initial mobility scores were associated with not versus partly documented Medication (6 [2, 7] and 2 [2, 6] (p = 0.041)).

Conclusions: We developed a structured way to categorize "assessment" and "action" 4Ms care processes reflective of three documentation categories in the hospital (not, partly, and fully) and identified important patient and hospital characteristics associated with each. These results offer opportunities for future improvement efforts and insight to which characteristics may be important to measure with wider 4Ms adoption and uptake.

医院 4Ms:记录及与患者特征的关联。
背景:对于数以千计被认定为 "老年友好型 "的医疗系统而言,在将 4Ms 纳入临床护理方面已经取得了相当大的进展。本研究评估了 4Ms 文件与住院患者特征之间的关联:在这项前瞻性队列研究中,住院患者均来自于采用并实施 4Ms 的老年急症护理(ACE)病房。每个 M(重要事项、用药、指导和行动)被分为三类(未记录、部分记录和完全记录),反映了 "评估 "和 "行动 "临床护理流程。对电子健康记录中的患者和住院特征进行了审查。描述性统计评估了每个 M 类别的这些特征:共有 620 次住院(573 名患者)被纳入队列。患者的中位年龄为 80 岁 [IQR:76-86],85% 为白人。在所有 4Ms 中,"重要事项 "的记录最少,有 413 例(67%)病例属于无记录组。药物治疗记录最多,有 453 次(73%)属于完全记录组。记录的显著差异与年龄和部分记录与完全记录流动性有关(80 [76, 86] 和 82 [77, 88] (p = 0.019))。住院时间与所有 4M 类别的记录相关性不同。最初的活动能力评分与未记录用药和部分记录用药有关(6 [2, 7] 和 2 [2, 6] (p = 0.041)):我们开发了一种结构化方法,用于对 "评估 "和 "行动 "4Ms 护理流程进行分类,反映了医院的三种记录类别(未记录、部分记录和完全记录),并确定了与每种类别相关的重要患者和医院特征。这些结果为今后的改进工作提供了机会,并使我们深入了解了在更广泛地采用和吸收 4Ms 的过程中,哪些特征可能需要加以衡量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信