Improving Function in Older Veterans With Hospital-Associated Deconditioning

Will be assessed at the subject's self selected speed for each participant over 4 meters. Faster walking indicates capacity for performance of certain activities (e.g. crossing a street before the light changes).

Time frame: From baseline to 60 days post-baseline

Grip strength was measured on the dominant hand using a hand dynamometer with the participant seated and elbow positioned at 90 degrees of flexion with the arm resting against the trunk. Maximal grip strength during a 3 second hold was measured for at least 2 trials and a 3rd trial was allowed if differences between trials were \> 5%. Higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome).

Time frame: Baseline

Grip strength was measured on the dominant hand using a hand dynamometer with the participant seated and elbow positioned at 90 degrees of flexion with the arm resting against the trunk. Maximal grip strength during a 3 second hold was measured for at least 2 trials and a 3rd trial was allowed if differences between trials were \> 5%. Higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome).

Time frame: 180 Days

Grip strength was measured on the dominant hand using a hand dynamometer with the participant seated and elbow positioned at 90 degrees of flexion with the arm resting against the trunk. Maximal grip strength during a 3 second hold was measured for at least 2 trials and a 3rd trial was allowed if differences between trials were \> 5%. Higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome).

Time frame: 90 Days

Grip strength was measured on the dominant hand using a hand dynamometer with the participant seated and elbow positioned at 90 degrees of flexion with the arm resting against the trunk. Maximal grip strength during a 3 second hold was measured for at least 2 trials and a 3rd trial was allowed if differences between trials were \> 5%. Higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome).

Time frame: 60 Days

Grip strength was measured on the dominant hand using a hand dynamometer with the participant seated and elbow positioned at 90 degrees of flexion with the arm resting against the trunk. Maximal grip strength during a 3 second hold was measured for at least 2 trials and a 3rd trial was allowed if differences between trials were \> 5%. Higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome).

Time frame: 30 Days

Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

Time frame: 30 Days

Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

Time frame: 180 Days

Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

Time frame: 90 Days

Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

Time frame: 60 Days

Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

Time frame: Baseline

Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

Time frame: 90 Days

Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

Time frame: Baseline

Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

Time frame: 30 Days

Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

Time frame: 60 Days

Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

Time frame: 180 Days

mPPT assesses 7 tasks. Based on the time it takes to complete each task, a score from 0 (unable to complete) to 4 (performed quickly and easily) is given for each item. The maximal score is 28 and includes tasks that involve upper and lower extremity function. Test-retest reliability for the modified PPT score is 0.96. The instrument is sensitive to change and has been used in exercise trials with frail elders.

Time frame: 180 Days

mPPT assesses 7 tasks. Based on the time it takes to complete each task, a score from 0 (unable to complete) to 4 (performed quickly and easily) is given for each item. The maximal score is 28 and includes tasks that involve upper and lower extremity function. Test-retest reliability for the modified PPT score is 0.96. The instrument is sensitive to change and has been used in exercise trials with frail elders.

Time frame: Baseline

mPPT assesses 7 tasks. Based on the time it takes to complete each task, a score from 0 (unable to complete) to 4 (performed quickly and easily) is given for each item. The maximal score is 28 and includes tasks that involve upper and lower extremity function. Test-retest reliability for the modified PPT score is 0.96. The instrument is sensitive to change and has been used in exercise trials with frail elders.

Time frame: 30 Days

mPPT assesses 7 tasks. Based on the time it takes to complete each task, a score from 0 (unable to complete) to 4 (performed quickly and easily) is given for each item. The maximal score is 28 and includes tasks that involve upper and lower extremity function. Test-retest reliability for the modified PPT score is 0.96. The instrument is sensitive to change and has been used in exercise trials with frail elders.

Time frame: 60 Days

mPPT assesses 7 tasks. Based on the time it takes to complete each task, a score from 0 (unable to complete) to 4 (performed quickly and easily) is given for each item. The maximal score is 28 and includes tasks that involve upper and lower extremity function. Test-retest reliability for the modified PPT score is 0.96. The instrument is sensitive to change and has been used in exercise trials with frail elders.

Time frame: 90 Days

Will be assessed at the subject's self selected speed for each participant over 4 meters. Faster walking indicates capacity for performance of certain activities (e.g. crossing a street before the light changes).

Time frame: 30 Days

Will be assessed at the subject's self selected speed for each participant over 4 meters. Faster walking indicates capacity for performance of certain activities (e.g. crossing a street before the light changes).

Time frame: Baseline

Will be assessed at the subject's self selected speed for each participant over 4 meters. Faster walking indicates capacity for performance of certain activities (e.g. crossing a street before the light changes).

Time frame: 90 Days

Will be assessed at the subject's self selected speed for each participant over 4 meters. Faster walking indicates capacity for performance of certain activities (e.g. crossing a street before the light changes).

Time frame: 180 Days

The SPPB is a well-accepted global measure of lower extremity function which consists of a composite measure including walking speed, chair stands, and balance. It is a strong predictor of disability, institutionalization, and morbidity in older adults. The SPPB is comprised of 3 tasks: a hierarchical standing balance test (side-by-side, semi-tandem, and tandem), a 4-meter usual gait speed, and a 5-time sit-to-stand from a standardized chair. Each subtask is scored (based on time) from 0-4 points and then summarized into a total score of 0-12 points, where 12 points represents the highest performance.

Time frame: 30 Days

The SPPB is a well-accepted global measure of lower extremity function which consists of a composite measure including walking speed, chair stands, and balance. It is a strong predictor of disability, institutionalization, and morbidity in older adults. The SPPB is comprised of 3 tasks: a hierarchical standing balance test (side-by-side, semi-tandem, and tandem), a 4-meter usual gait speed, and a 5-time sit-to-stand from a standardized chair. Each subtask is scored (based on time) from 0-4 points and then summarized into a total score of 0-12 points, where 12 points represents the highest performance.

Time frame: Baseline

The SPPB is a well-accepted global measure of lower extremity function which consists of a composite measure including walking speed, chair stands, and balance. It is a strong predictor of disability, institutionalization, and morbidity in older adults. The SPPB is comprised of 3 tasks: a hierarchical standing balance test (side-by-side, semi-tandem, and tandem), a 4-meter usual gait speed, and a 5-time sit-to-stand from a standardized chair. Each subtask is scored (based on time) from 0-4 points and then summarized into a total score of 0-12 points, where 12 points represents the highest performance.

Time frame: 180 Days

The SPPB is a well-accepted global measure of lower extremity function which consists of a composite measure including walking speed, chair stands, and balance. It is a strong predictor of disability, institutionalization, and morbidity in older adults. The SPPB is comprised of 3 tasks: a hierarchical standing balance test (side-by-side, semi-tandem, and tandem), a 4-meter usual gait speed, and a 5-time sit-to-stand from a standardized chair. Each subtask is scored (based on time) from 0-4 points and then summarized into a total score of 0-12 points, where 12 points represents the highest performance.

Time frame: 90 Days

The SPPB is a well-accepted global measure of lower extremity function which consists of a composite measure including walking speed, chair stands, and balance. It is a strong predictor of disability, institutionalization, and morbidity in older adults. The SPPB is comprised of 3 tasks: a hierarchical standing balance test (side-by-side, semi-tandem, and tandem), a 4-meter usual gait speed, and a 5-time sit-to-stand from a standardized chair. Each subtask is scored (based on time) from 0-4 points and then summarized into a total score of 0-12 points, where 12 points represents the highest performance.

Time frame: 60 Days

The TUG measures the time it takes a patient to rise from an arm chair (seat height of 46 cm), walk 3 m, turn and return to sitting in the same chair without physical assistance. This test has excellent inter-rater (ICC=0.99) and intra-rater reliability (ICC=0.99), as measured in a group of 60 functionally disabled older adults (mean age 80 years). Faster times indicate a better outcome.

Time frame: 30 Days

The TUG measures the time it takes a patient to rise from an arm chair (seat height of 46 cm), walk 3 m, turn and return to sitting in the same chair without physical assistance. This test has excellent inter-rater (ICC=0.99) and intra-rater reliability (ICC=0.99), as measured in a group of 60 functionally disabled older adults (mean age 80 years). Faster times indicate a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline

The TUG measures the time it takes a patient to rise from an arm chair (seat height of 46 cm), walk 3 m, turn and return to sitting in the same chair without physical assistance. This test has excellent inter-rater (ICC=0.99) and intra-rater reliability (ICC=0.99), as measured in a group of 60 functionally disabled older adults (mean age 80 years). Faster times indicate a better outcome.

Time frame: 180 Days

The TUG measures the time it takes a patient to rise from an arm chair (seat height of 46 cm), walk 3 m, turn and return to sitting in the same chair without physical assistance. This test has excellent inter-rater (ICC=0.99) and intra-rater reliability (ICC=0.99), as measured in a group of 60 functionally disabled older adults (mean age 80 years). Faster times indicate a better outcome.

Time frame: 90 Days

The TUG measures the time it takes a patient to rise from an arm chair (seat height of 46 cm), walk 3 m, turn and return to sitting in the same chair without physical assistance. This test has excellent inter-rater (ICC=0.99) and intra-rater reliability (ICC=0.99), as measured in a group of 60 functionally disabled older adults (mean age 80 years). Faster times indicate a better outcome.

Time frame: 60 Days

A self-administered, validated survey identifying patient motivation levels regarding their healthcare. The PAM survey can reliably predict ER visits, hospital admissions, and medication/ therapy adherence. The final score is a composite score of the available 13 items, ranging from 0-100, wherein a higher score indicates a higher activation (better outcomes).

Time frame: Baseline

Mounted, tri-axial accelerometer activPAL (PAL Technologies Ltd, Glasgow, UK) was used to capture steps. The activPAL was mounted following completion of the associated assessment and was set to record physical activity for a 24-hour/day, 10-day wear protocol. Data was analyzed with the CREA algorithm (PAL Technologies Ltd) to determine valid wear days. Average step count across valid wear days was used for analysis.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: Activity monitor placement was deferred for those participants who declined placement, demonstrated impaired skin integrity, or were unable to understand instructions.

Mounted, tri-axial accelerometer activPAL (PAL Technologies Ltd, Glasgow, UK) was used to capture steps. The activPAL was mounted following completion of the associated assessment and was set to record physical activity for a 24-hour/day, 10-day wear protocol. Data was analyzed with the CREA algorithm (PAL Technologies Ltd) to determine valid wear days. Average step count across valid wear days was used for analysis.

Time frame: 60 Days

Population: Activity monitor placement was deferred for those participants who declined placement, demonstrated impaired skin integrity, or were unable to understand instructions.

Mounted, tri-axial accelerometer activPAL (PAL Technologies Ltd, Glasgow, UK) was used to capture steps. The activPAL was mounted following completion of the associated assessment and was set to record physical activity for a 24-hour/day, 10-day wear protocol. Data was analyzed with the CREA algorithm (PAL Technologies Ltd) to determine valid wear days. Average step count across valid wear days was used for analysis.

Time frame: 180 Days

Population: Activity monitor placement was deferred for those participants who declined placement, demonstrated impaired skin integrity, or were unable to understand instructions.

SLUMS screens for cognitive impairments by assessing participant function in the areas of attention, calculation, immediate and delayed recall, animal naming, and visuospatial skills. Scores range from 0 to 30, wherein a higher score indicates less cognitive impairment. Scores of 27 to 30 are considered normal in a person with a high school education. Scores between 21 and 26 suggest a mild neurocognitive disorder. Scores between 0 and 20 indicate dementia.

Time frame: 180 Days

SLUMS screens for cognitive impairments by assessing participant function in the areas of attention, calculation, immediate and delayed recall, animal naming, and visuospatial skills. Scores range from 0 to 30, wherein a higher score indicates less cognitive impairment. Scores of 27 to 30 are considered normal in a person with a high school education. Scores between 21 and 26 suggest a mild neurocognitive disorder. Scores between 0 and 20 indicate dementia.

Time frame: Baseline

SLUMS screens for cognitive impairments by assessing participant function in the areas of attention, calculation, immediate and delayed recall, animal naming, and visuospatial skills. Scores range from 0 to 30, wherein a higher score indicates less cognitive impairment. Scores of 27 to 30 are considered normal in a person with a high school education. Scores between 21 and 26 suggest a mild neurocognitive disorder. Scores between 0 and 20 indicate dementia.

Time frame: 60 Days

The Life-Space Assessment survey is a self-reported measure assessing a patient's movement, extending from within the home to beyond a patient's town or geographic region during the prior 4 weeks. The composite score (summed) ranges from 0 to 120, with higher scores representing greater mobility.

Time frame: 90 Days

The Life-Space Assessment survey is a self-reported measure assessing a patient's movement, extending from within the home to beyond a patient's town or geographic region during the prior 4 weeks. The composite score (summed) ranges from 0 to 120, with higher scores representing greater mobility.

Time frame: 180 Days

The Life-Space Assessment survey is a self-reported measure assessing a patient's movement, extending from within the home to beyond a patient's town or geographic region during the prior 4 weeks. The composite score (summed) ranges from 0 to 120, with higher scores representing greater mobility.

Time frame: Baseline

The Life-Space Assessment survey is a self-reported measure assessing a patient's movement, extending from within the home to beyond a patient's town or geographic region during the prior 4 weeks. The composite score (summed) ranges from 0 to 120, with higher scores representing greater mobility.

Time frame: 30 Days

The Life-Space Assessment survey is a self-reported measure assessing a patient's movement, extending from within the home to beyond a patient's town or geographic region during the prior 4 weeks. The composite score (summed) ranges from 0 to 120, with higher scores representing greater mobility.

Time frame: 60 Days

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) is a patient-reported global health measure that is used to assess a patient's overall perspective of their health. The questions in this survey correspond to seven different health domains: general health perceptions, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional problems, bodily pain, energy/fatigue levels, social functioning and mental health. Answers are summarized into two scores, a Physical Component Score (PCS) and a Mental Component Score (MCS) which then provides an important contrast between the respondents' physical and psychological health status. Each component score is summarized from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) is a patient-reported global health measure that is used to assess a patient's overall perspective of their health. The questions in this survey correspond to seven different health domains: general health perceptions, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional problems, bodily pain, energy/fatigue levels, social functioning and mental health. Answers are summarized into two scores, a Physical Component Score (PCS) and a Mental Component Score (MCS) which then provides an important contrast between the respondents' physical and psychological health status. Each component score is summarized from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating a better outcome.

Time frame: 60 Days

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) is a patient-reported global health measure that is used to assess a patient's overall perspective of their health. The questions in this survey correspond to seven different health domains: general health perceptions, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional problems, bodily pain, energy/fatigue levels, social functioning and mental health. Answers are summarized into two scores, a Physical Component Score (PCS) and a Mental Component Score (MCS) which then provides an important contrast between the respondents' physical and psychological health status. Each component score is summarized from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating a better outcome.

Time frame: 180 Days

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) is a patient-reported global health measure that is used to assess a patient's overall perspective of their health. The questions in this survey correspond to seven different health domains: general health perceptions, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional problems, bodily pain, energy/fatigue levels, social functioning and mental health. Answers are summarized into two scores, a Physical Component Score (PCS) and a Mental Component Score (MCS) which then provides an important contrast between the respondents' physical and psychological health status. Each component score is summarized from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) is a patient-reported global health measure that is used to assess a patient's overall perspective of their health. The questions in this survey correspond to seven different health domains: general health perceptions, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional problems, bodily pain, energy/fatigue levels, social functioning and mental health. Answers are summarized into two scores, a Physical Component Score (PCS) and a Mental Component Score (MCS) which then provides an important contrast between the respondents' physical and psychological health status. Each component score is summarized from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating a better outcome.

Time frame: 60 Days

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) is a patient-reported global health measure that is used to assess a patient's overall perspective of their health. The questions in this survey correspond to seven different health domains: general health perceptions, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional problems, bodily pain, energy/fatigue levels, social functioning and mental health. Answers are summarized into two scores, a Physical Component Score (PCS) and a Mental Component Score (MCS) which then provides an important contrast between the respondents' physical and psychological health status. Each component score is summarized from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating a better outcome.

Time frame: 180 Days