Whitney S1, Ellis J2, Otis L2, Marchetti G3
1University of Pittsburgh, Physical Therapy, Pittsburgh, United States, 2Kindred at Home, Division Research & Business Development, Knoxville, United States, 3Duquesne University, Physical Therapy, Pittsburgh, United States
Background: Safe Strides® plus Zōntago was designed consisting of motivational interviewing with subsequent positive reinforcement of adherence to a home program, individualized/structured progressive interventions, customized exercise intensity prescription, and prioritized patient-skill-acquisition training to maximize the benefit of physical therapy home care services.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if there was difference in the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) ADL item scores between the Safe Strides® program and Safe Strides® plus Zōntago program.
Methods: The design was a prospective randomized quality improvement study. Physical therapists and physical therapist assistants had been trained in Safe Strides with four of the eight clinics additionally trained in Zōntago. De-identified OASIS data from patient records were retrieved.
Results: ADL change scores were analyzed for 112 patient care episodes. The Safe Strides + Zontago mean total ADL score change was 10.0 ± 3.7 compared with the Safe Strides group 7.9 ± 4.1 ( p = .024, ES = .25). The Safe Strides + Zontago group had greater change in total ADL score per visit (.44 ± .25) compared with the Safe Strides alone (.34 ± .24, Z = 2.38, P = .017, ES = .40). The Safe-strides+ Zontago group had greater change in ADL scores per therapy visit (Z = 2.22, P = .027, ES = .41) and ADL score per day of episode of care (Z = 2.16, P = .031, ES = .30) than Safe Strides® alone.
Conclusion(s): The Safe Strides® + Zontago compared to Safe Strides® alone improved patient functional outcomes.
Implications: The interactive effects of motivational interviewing with targeted/positive reinforcement, providing individualized/structured progressive interventions, having the patients work in the moderate to a moderate to high exercise intensity, and prioritizing patient-skill-acquisition training may add value in the treatment of an older adult seen in the home.
Keywords: exercise, older adults, home care
Funding acknowledgements: No funding.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if there was difference in the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) ADL item scores between the Safe Strides® program and Safe Strides® plus Zōntago program.
Methods: The design was a prospective randomized quality improvement study. Physical therapists and physical therapist assistants had been trained in Safe Strides with four of the eight clinics additionally trained in Zōntago. De-identified OASIS data from patient records were retrieved.
Results: ADL change scores were analyzed for 112 patient care episodes. The Safe Strides + Zontago mean total ADL score change was 10.0 ± 3.7 compared with the Safe Strides group 7.9 ± 4.1 ( p = .024, ES = .25). The Safe Strides + Zontago group had greater change in total ADL score per visit (.44 ± .25) compared with the Safe Strides alone (.34 ± .24, Z = 2.38, P = .017, ES = .40). The Safe-strides+ Zontago group had greater change in ADL scores per therapy visit (Z = 2.22, P = .027, ES = .41) and ADL score per day of episode of care (Z = 2.16, P = .031, ES = .30) than Safe Strides® alone.
Conclusion(s): The Safe Strides® + Zontago compared to Safe Strides® alone improved patient functional outcomes.
Implications: The interactive effects of motivational interviewing with targeted/positive reinforcement, providing individualized/structured progressive interventions, having the patients work in the moderate to a moderate to high exercise intensity, and prioritizing patient-skill-acquisition training may add value in the treatment of an older adult seen in the home.
Keywords: exercise, older adults, home care
Funding acknowledgements: No funding.
Topic: Older people; Disability & rehabilitation
Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: University of Pittsburgh
Ethics committee: Biomedical review board
Ethics number: PR016070227
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
