Trial Outcomes & Findings for Improving Patient Walking During Hospitalization (NCT NCT04479943)

NCT ID: NCT04479943

Last Updated: 2026-03-27

Results Overview

Gait Speed is a physical performance measure identified as a sensitive clinical indicator of health, mortality, healthcare utilization, and independence in ambulation, and is feasible to test in hospitalized older adults. A 4 meter walk test will be conducted on admission to the study, discharge from the hospital and at 3 months post discharge in the subjects home or the hospital or clinic. A trained member of the research team will conduct the gait speed test. Interrater reliability for the 4 meter walk test will be conducted between all members of the research team prior to collecting gait speed data on study participants. Change scores will be calculated as the difference among gait speeds measured at each time points.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

NA

Target enrollment

765 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

Within 24 hours of hospital admission, Within 8 hours of hospital discharge, 3 months post-discharge; Up to 4 months total

Results posted on

2026-03-27

Participant Flow

In this incomplete stepped-wedge design, Units were assigned randomly to Steps. Each Step contained exactly one Unit, and no Units dropped out. Within a Step, there was a Control period (pre-intervention); an Intervention run-in period, during which no Patients or Nursing Staff were enrolled (and therefore, this period is not shown in the Participant Flow table); and a Post-Intervention period. Patients and Nursing Staff were recruited in both Control and Post-Intervention periods.

Unit of analysis: Hospital Units

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure
Step 1: Unit A
Pre-Intervention (Control) 12/27/2020-06/26/2021 (6 months) MOVIN Implementation Period 06/27/2021-10/09/2021 (approximately 3 months) Post-Intervention 10/10/2021-04/10/2022 (6 months) Adult patients (age 65 or older) will be recruited over 6-8 months after MOVIN has been implemented on the unit. Nurses will complete surveys and provide qualitative data to assess barriers to implementation. MOVIN is a multi-component unit-based intervention comprised of five components that are implemented simultaneously in a hospital unit. The five components are: 1) psychomotor skills training, 2) unit ambulation culture, 3) communication, 4) resources, 5) ambulation environment.
Step 2: Unit B
Pre-Intervention (Control) 09/26/2021-03/26/2022 (6 months) MOVIN Implementation Period 03/27/2022-07/02/2022 (approximately 3 months) Post-Intervention 07/03/2022-12/31/2022 (6 months) Adult patients (age 65 or older) will be recruited over 6-8 months after MOVIN has been implemented on the unit. Nurses will complete surveys and provide qualitative data to assess barriers to implementation. MOVIN is a multi-component unit-based intervention comprised of five components that are implemented simultaneously in a hospital unit. The five components are: 1) psychomotor skills training, 2) unit ambulation culture, 3) communication, 4) resources, 5) ambulation environment.
Step 3: Unit C
Pre-Intervention (Control) 07/24/2022-01/21/2023 (approximately 6 months) MOVIN Implementation Period 01/22/2023-06/10/2023 (approximately 4 months) Post-Intervention 06/11/2023-12/10/2023 (6 months) Adult patients (age 65 or older) will be recruited over 6-8 months after MOVIN has been implemented on the unit. Nurses will complete surveys and provide qualitative data to assess barriers to implementation. MOVIN is a multi-component unit-based intervention comprised of five components that are implemented simultaneously in a hospital unit. The five components are: 1) psychomotor skills training, 2) unit ambulation culture, 3) communication, 4) resources, 5) ambulation environment.
Step 4: Unit D
Pre-Intervention (Control) 02/12/2023-08/12/2023 (6 months) MOVIN Implementation Period 08/13/2023-11/18/2023 (approximately 3 months) Post-Intervention 11/19/2023-05/19/2024 (6 months) Adult patients (age 65 or older) will be recruited over 6-8 months after MOVIN has been implemented on the unit. Nurses will complete surveys and provide qualitative data to assess barriers to implementation. MOVIN is a multi-component unit-based intervention comprised of five components that are implemented simultaneously in a hospital unit. The five components are: 1) psychomotor skills training, 2) unit ambulation culture, 3) communication, 4) resources, 5) ambulation environment.
Control (Pre-Intervention)
STARTED
93 1
92 1
116 1
84 1
Control (Pre-Intervention)
Control Patients
45 1
51 1
57 1
35 1
Control (Pre-Intervention)
Control Nursing Staff
48 1
41 1
59 1
49 1
Control (Pre-Intervention)
COMPLETED
82 1
73 1
90 1
75 1
Control (Pre-Intervention)
NOT COMPLETED
11 0
19 0
26 0
9 0
Post-Intervention
STARTED
73 1
89 1
142 1
76 1
Post-Intervention
Post-Intervention Patients
44 1
56 1
64 1
35 1
Post-Intervention
Post Intervention Nursing Staff
29 1
33 1
78 1
41 1
Post-Intervention
COMPLETED
64 1
64 1
121 1
61 1
Post-Intervention
NOT COMPLETED
9 0
25 0
21 0
15 0

Reasons for withdrawal

Reasons for withdrawal
Measure
Step 1: Unit A
Pre-Intervention (Control) 12/27/2020-06/26/2021 (6 months) MOVIN Implementation Period 06/27/2021-10/09/2021 (approximately 3 months) Post-Intervention 10/10/2021-04/10/2022 (6 months) Adult patients (age 65 or older) will be recruited over 6-8 months after MOVIN has been implemented on the unit. Nurses will complete surveys and provide qualitative data to assess barriers to implementation. MOVIN is a multi-component unit-based intervention comprised of five components that are implemented simultaneously in a hospital unit. The five components are: 1) psychomotor skills training, 2) unit ambulation culture, 3) communication, 4) resources, 5) ambulation environment.
Step 2: Unit B
Pre-Intervention (Control) 09/26/2021-03/26/2022 (6 months) MOVIN Implementation Period 03/27/2022-07/02/2022 (approximately 3 months) Post-Intervention 07/03/2022-12/31/2022 (6 months) Adult patients (age 65 or older) will be recruited over 6-8 months after MOVIN has been implemented on the unit. Nurses will complete surveys and provide qualitative data to assess barriers to implementation. MOVIN is a multi-component unit-based intervention comprised of five components that are implemented simultaneously in a hospital unit. The five components are: 1) psychomotor skills training, 2) unit ambulation culture, 3) communication, 4) resources, 5) ambulation environment.
Step 3: Unit C
Pre-Intervention (Control) 07/24/2022-01/21/2023 (approximately 6 months) MOVIN Implementation Period 01/22/2023-06/10/2023 (approximately 4 months) Post-Intervention 06/11/2023-12/10/2023 (6 months) Adult patients (age 65 or older) will be recruited over 6-8 months after MOVIN has been implemented on the unit. Nurses will complete surveys and provide qualitative data to assess barriers to implementation. MOVIN is a multi-component unit-based intervention comprised of five components that are implemented simultaneously in a hospital unit. The five components are: 1) psychomotor skills training, 2) unit ambulation culture, 3) communication, 4) resources, 5) ambulation environment.
Step 4: Unit D
Pre-Intervention (Control) 02/12/2023-08/12/2023 (6 months) MOVIN Implementation Period 08/13/2023-11/18/2023 (approximately 3 months) Post-Intervention 11/19/2023-05/19/2024 (6 months) Adult patients (age 65 or older) will be recruited over 6-8 months after MOVIN has been implemented on the unit. Nurses will complete surveys and provide qualitative data to assess barriers to implementation. MOVIN is a multi-component unit-based intervention comprised of five components that are implemented simultaneously in a hospital unit. The five components are: 1) psychomotor skills training, 2) unit ambulation culture, 3) communication, 4) resources, 5) ambulation environment.
Control (Pre-Intervention)
Death
4
4
8
2
Control (Pre-Intervention)
Withdrawal by Subject
1
3
7
0
Control (Pre-Intervention)
Physician Decision
5
8
5
4
Control (Pre-Intervention)
Protocol Violation
1
2
2
1
Control (Pre-Intervention)
Lost to Follow-up
0
1
4
2
Control (Pre-Intervention)
Change in health status
0
1
0
0
Post-Intervention
Death
5
4
2
4
Post-Intervention
Withdrawal by Subject
1
2
5
1
Post-Intervention
Physician Decision
2
10
9
7
Post-Intervention
Protocol Violation
1
4
2
1
Post-Intervention
Lost to Follow-up
0
0
3
1
Post-Intervention
Hospice/POA
0
2
0
0
Post-Intervention
Can't walk
0
3
0
0
Post-Intervention
Previously enrolled in the study
0
0
0
1

Baseline Characteristics

Improving Patient Walking During Hospitalization

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure
Post-Intervention Nursing Staff
n=181 Participants
These participants were nursing staff members who were eligible for enrollment and who enrolled in the study after the intervention.
Total
n=765 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=188 Participants
These participants were hospital patients who were eligible for enrollment and who enrolled in the study prior to the intervention.
Pre-Intervention Nursing Staff
n=197 Participants
These participants were nursing staff members who were eligible for enrollment and who enrolled in the study prior to the intervention.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=199 Participants
These participants were hospital patients who were eligible for enrollment and who enrolled in the study after the intervention.
Age, Customized
Age, categorical · <=18 years
0 Participants
n=53 Participants
0 Participants
n=654 Participants
0 Participants
n=56 Participants
0 Participants
n=62 Participants
0 Participants
n=123 Participants
Age, Customized
Age, categorical · 19 to 64 years
0 Participants
n=53 Participants
1 Participants
n=654 Participants
1 Participants
n=56 Participants
0 Participants
n=62 Participants
0 Participants
n=123 Participants
Age, Customized
Age, categorical · >=65 years
0 Participants
n=53 Participants
384 Participants
n=654 Participants
186 Participants
n=56 Participants
0 Participants
n=62 Participants
198 Participants
n=123 Participants
Age, Customized
Age, categorical · Unknown
181 Participants
n=53 Participants
380 Participants
n=654 Participants
1 Participants
n=56 Participants
197 Participants
n=62 Participants
1 Participants
n=123 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex · Female
160 Participants
n=53 Participants
520 Participants
n=654 Participants
101 Participants
n=56 Participants
164 Participants
n=62 Participants
95 Participants
n=123 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex · Male
13 Participants
n=53 Participants
228 Participants
n=654 Participants
86 Participants
n=56 Participants
26 Participants
n=62 Participants
103 Participants
n=123 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex · Nonbinary
1 Participants
n=53 Participants
2 Participants
n=654 Participants
0 Participants
n=56 Participants
1 Participants
n=62 Participants
0 Participants
n=123 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex · Unknown
7 Participants
n=53 Participants
15 Participants
n=654 Participants
1 Participants
n=56 Participants
6 Participants
n=62 Participants
1 Participants
n=123 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
13 Participants
n=53 Participants
30 Participants
n=654 Participants
3 Participants
n=56 Participants
8 Participants
n=62 Participants
6 Participants
n=123 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
150 Participants
n=53 Participants
696 Participants
n=654 Participants
181 Participants
n=56 Participants
173 Participants
n=62 Participants
192 Participants
n=123 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
18 Participants
n=53 Participants
39 Participants
n=654 Participants
4 Participants
n=56 Participants
16 Participants
n=62 Participants
1 Participants
n=123 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
2 Participants
n=53 Participants
2 Participants
n=654 Participants
0 Participants
n=56 Participants
0 Participants
n=62 Participants
0 Participants
n=123 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
15 Participants
n=53 Participants
40 Participants
n=654 Participants
1 Participants
n=56 Participants
23 Participants
n=62 Participants
1 Participants
n=123 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants
n=53 Participants
0 Participants
n=654 Participants
0 Participants
n=56 Participants
0 Participants
n=62 Participants
0 Participants
n=123 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
14 Participants
n=53 Participants
58 Participants
n=654 Participants
16 Participants
n=56 Participants
14 Participants
n=62 Participants
14 Participants
n=123 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
130 Participants
n=53 Participants
619 Participants
n=654 Participants
169 Participants
n=56 Participants
137 Participants
n=62 Participants
183 Participants
n=123 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
4 Participants
n=53 Participants
5 Participants
n=654 Participants
0 Participants
n=56 Participants
1 Participants
n=62 Participants
0 Participants
n=123 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
16 Participants
n=53 Participants
41 Participants
n=654 Participants
2 Participants
n=56 Participants
22 Participants
n=62 Participants
1 Participants
n=123 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
181 participants
n=53 Participants
765 participants
n=654 Participants
188 participants
n=56 Participants
197 participants
n=62 Participants
199 participants
n=123 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Within 24 hours of hospital admission, Within 8 hours of hospital discharge, 3 months post-discharge; Up to 4 months total

Population: One Pre-Intervention Patient and one Post-Intervention Patient were missing gait speed data at baseline.

Gait Speed is a physical performance measure identified as a sensitive clinical indicator of health, mortality, healthcare utilization, and independence in ambulation, and is feasible to test in hospitalized older adults. A 4 meter walk test will be conducted on admission to the study, discharge from the hospital and at 3 months post discharge in the subjects home or the hospital or clinic. A trained member of the research team will conduct the gait speed test. Interrater reliability for the 4 meter walk test will be conducted between all members of the research team prior to collecting gait speed data on study participants. Change scores will be calculated as the difference among gait speeds measured at each time points.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=187 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=198 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 1: Change in Gait Speed
Within 24 hours of hospital admission
0.67 m/s
Interval 0.51 to 0.82
0.73 m/s
Interval 0.56 to 0.89
Aim 1: Change in Gait Speed
Within 8 hours of hospital discharge
0.73 m/s
Interval 0.62 to 0.84
0.77 m/s
Interval 0.64 to 0.9
Aim 1: Change in Gait Speed
3 month post-discharge
0.86 m/s
Interval 0.72 to 1.01
0.91 m/s
Interval 0.79 to 1.04

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Within 24 hours of hospital admission, Within 8 hours of hospital discharge, 1 month post-discharge, 3 months post-discharge; 6 months post-discharge

Population: Self-reported ADLs were missing for 20 patients in the Pre-Intervention period and 26 patients in the Post-Intervention period.

A trained member of the research team collected patients self-report of ADLs on admission to the study, discharge from the hospital, by phone at 1 month post intervention and 6 months post intervention, and in person at the 3 month post intervention visit using the Katz ADL Index. The Katz ADL Index is a self-report scale that measures six ADL on two levels (independent or requiring assistance of another). A score of 0-6 is possible, with higher scores indicating higher independence with ADLs and lower scores indicating higher dependence on others to perform ADLs. The scale demonstrates excellent reliability and predictive validity, and is sensitive to change in hospital settings. For the primary analysis, patients with a score of 6 were converted to a binary score of 1=Independent; all others were scored as 0=Dependent.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=168 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=173 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
Within 24 hours of hospital admission · 0 (Dependent)
70 Participants
61 Participants
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
Within 24 hours of hospital admission · 1 (Independent)
98 Participants
112 Participants
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
Within 24 hours of hospital admission · Missing
0 Participants
0 Participants
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
Within 8 hours of hospital discharge · 0 (Dependent)
54 Participants
43 Participants
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
Within 8 hours of hospital discharge · 1 (Independent)
103 Participants
118 Participants
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
Within 8 hours of hospital discharge · Missing
11 Participants
12 Participants
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
1 month post-discharge · 0 (Dependent)
52 Participants
47 Participants
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
1 month post-discharge · 1 (Independent)
97 Participants
103 Participants
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
1 month post-discharge · Missing
19 Participants
23 Participants
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
3 months post-discharge · 0 (Dependent)
44 Participants
26 Participants
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
3 months post-discharge · 1 (Independent)
94 Participants
110 Participants
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
3 months post-discharge · Missing
30 Participants
37 Participants
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
6 months post-discharge · 0 (Dependent)
39 Participants
24 Participants
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
6 months post-discharge · 1 (Independent)
84 Participants
104 Participants
Aim 1: Change in Self-report on Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
6 months post-discharge · Missing
45 Participants
45 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Within 24 hours of hospital admission, 1 month post-discharge, 3 months post-discharge; 6 months post-discharge

Population: Life Space Analysis data were missing for 20 patients in the Pre-Intervention period and 26 patients in the Post-Intervention period.

The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Life Space Assessment (LSA) is a self-report scale of ambulation that measures spaces patients' move in, the frequency of moving into those spaces, and dependency in moving into those spaces. This scale has demonstrated reliability and predictive validity and sensitivity to change after hospital stay. Level scores are calculated by multiplying the life-space level (higher numbers indicate farther distances moved, e.g., 1-inside the home to 5-places outside of the person's town), degree of independence (higher scores indicate greater independence), and frequency of movement (higher scores equal greater frequency). Total scores range from 0 (totally bed-bound) to 120 (moved out of town every day without assistance). A trained member of the research team will collect patients self-report on Life Space. Change scores will be calculated as the difference among LSA ambulation measured at each time point.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=168 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=173 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 1: Change in Life Space Assessment
Within 24 hours of hospital admission
62.6 score on a scale
Standard Error 3.9
68.5 score on a scale
Standard Error 3.2
Aim 1: Change in Life Space Assessment
1 month post-discharge
60.5 score on a scale
Standard Error 3.0
62.3 score on a scale
Standard Error 3.0
Aim 1: Change in Life Space Assessment
3 months post-discharge
67.6 score on a scale
Standard Error 2.4
70.1 score on a scale
Standard Error 3.7
Aim 1: Change in Life Space Assessment
6 months post-discharge
67.2 score on a scale
Standard Error 3.2
69.2 score on a scale
Standard Error 2.5

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: 1 month post-discharge; 3 months post-discharge; 6 months post-discharge; Up to 7 months total

Population: Participants were included in the analysis if they remained in the study through at least 1 month post-discharge. 82 participants did not have hospital readmissions data for at least the first month post-discharge.

Hospital readmissions were collected via patient self-report and via medical record review by a trained researcher from the study team. Patient readmission was coded as 0=not readmitted, 1=readmitted. Reported value for each cell reflects a model-based estimate of the probability of readmission, a type of least squares mean appropriate for a binary variable.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=151 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=154 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 2: Hospital Readmissions
1 month post-discharge
0.183 Marginal predicted probability
Interval 0.121 to 0.244
0.190 Marginal predicted probability
Interval 0.126 to 0.254
Aim 2: Hospital Readmissions
3 months post-discharge
0.206 Marginal predicted probability
Interval 0.138 to 0.273
0.193 Marginal predicted probability
Interval 0.127 to 0.26
Aim 2: Hospital Readmissions
6 months post-discharge
0.209 Marginal predicted probability
Interval 0.138 to 0.279
0.227 Marginal predicted probability
Interval 0.152 to 0.301

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: 1 month post-discharge; 3 months post-discharge; 6 months post-discharge; Up to 7 months total

Population: Participants were included in the analysis if they remained in the study through at least 1 month post-discharge. 82 participants did not have ED use data for at least the first month post-discharge.

Emergency department (ED) visits will be collected via patient self report. Patient ED usage was coded as 0=no ED visit, 1=any ED visit. Reported value for each cell reflects a model-based estimate of the probability of an ED visit, a type of least squares mean appropriate for a binary variable.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=151 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=154 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 2: Emergency Department Visits
6 months post-discharge
0.239 Marginal predicted probability
Interval 0.165 to 0.313
0.275 Marginal predicted probability
Interval 0.196 to 0.354
Aim 2: Emergency Department Visits
1 month post-discharge
0.233 Marginal predicted probability
Interval 0.166 to 0.301
0.292 Marginal predicted probability
Interval 0.218 to 0.366
Aim 2: Emergency Department Visits
3 months post-discharge
0.206 Marginal predicted probability
Interval 0.138 to 0.274
0.236 Marginal predicted probability
Interval 0.165 to 0.308

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: During hospital stay in the Pre-Intervention and Post-Intervention periods

Population: Patients were included if they remained in the study through discharge. Length of hospital stay was unavailable for 54 patients.

Length of hospital stay will be collected via patient medical record review by a nurse researcher from the study team.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=167 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=166 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 2: Length of Hospital Stay
6.10 days
Interval 4.25 to 7.95
5.44 days
Interval 4.13 to 6.74

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Within 3 months post-discharge; Up to 4 months total

Population: Patients were included if they remained in the study through discharge. 60 patients were removed from the study prior to that point and did not provide discharge destination data.

Discharge destination (home, skilled nursing facility) was collected via patient medical record review by a nurse researcher from the study team. Patient discharge destination was coded as 1=discharged to home, 0=discharged to a skilled nursing facility. Reported value for each cell reflects a model-based estimate of the probability of discharge to home, a type of least squares mean appropriate for a binary variable.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=163 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=164 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 2: Discharge Destination
0.939 Marginal predicted probability
Interval 0.878 to 0.999
0.933 Marginal predicted probability
Interval 0.902 to 0.964

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: 6 months pre-intervention, during the 14-week intervention period, and 6 months post-intervention; up to 16 months total

Population: We report for each unit the sum of all weekly counts of participants observed during the study period. This will double count participants who were observed during more than one week. The unit of analysis is the unit-week, i.e. each data point reflects the total distance walked among all patients recorded by nursing staff during one week on a specific hospital unit.

Unit level data on ambulation. Each week, the total distance walked on that unit by all patients on the unit was recorded. We report the average total weekly distance walked, using a model-based least squares mean. The number of participants analyzed is large because this measure is unit-level and includes all patients observed on the unit during the study period, not only those enrolled in the full study, and will double count patients who were observed during more than one week.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=67 weeks
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=66 weeks
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
n=4222 Participants
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
n=2415 Participants
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 3: Distance of Patient Ambulation
Pre-Intervention (over 6 months)
9504.0 feet
Interval 7581.2 to 11426.9
2869.9 feet
Interval 2339.1 to 3400.7
19464.8 feet
Interval 17300.8 to 21628.8
4923.8 feet
Interval 3765.5 to 6082.1
Aim 3: Distance of Patient Ambulation
Active Intervention
80242.7 feet
Interval 65248.6 to 95236.9
22081.6 feet
Interval 16785.0 to 27378.2
124565.3 feet
Interval 98073.7 to 151056.9
44269.5 feet
Interval 35524.7 to 53014.3
Aim 3: Distance of Patient Ambulation
Maintenance (over 6 months)
53246.8 feet
Interval 44774.4 to 61719.3
29225.1 feet
Interval 21998.0 to 36452.2
63585.9 feet
Interval 48798.5 to 78373.2
64605.8 feet
Interval 56252.6 to 72959.0

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: pre-intervention, post-intervention (up to about 20 weeks)

Population: Some surveys were incomplete and did not provide data for this outcome.

Data collected from enrolled nursing staff via paper copies or online link before and after the intervention. The Barriers to Patient Ambulation Survey assesses the nurses opinions regarding ambulation of hospitalized patients within the past 2 weeks. It is scored from 0-100 with higher scores indicating increased barriers to ambulation.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=194 surveys submitted
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=169 surveys submitted
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 3: Barriers to Ambulation Survey
57.0 score on a scale
Standard Error 2.6
63.0 score on a scale
Standard Error 1.7

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: pre-intervention, post-intervention (up to about 20 weeks)

Population: Data for the Ambulation Culture Survey were not available for N=31 nursing staff members.

Data collected from enrolled nursing staff via paper copies or online link before and after the intervention. The Ambulation Culture Survey asks for opinions on ambulation culture. We report responses to the item, "How would you rate your unit/work area on patient care related to ambulation?" This item has a minimum score of 1 (Poor) and a maximum score of 5 (Excellent). Higher values represent a better outcome.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=182 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=165 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 3: Ambulation Culture Survey
2.76 score on a scale
Interval 2.38 to 3.14
3.53 score on a scale
Interval 3.07 to 3.99

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 6 months pre-intervention, during the 14-week intervention period, and 6 months post-intervention; up to 16 months total

Population: We report for each unit the sum of all weekly counts of participants observed during the study period. This will double count participants who were observed during more than one week. The unit of analysis is the unit-week, i.e. each data point reflects the percentage of participants that were ambulated by nursing staff, as recorded by nursing staff during that week on that hospital unit.

Unit-level data on the percent of patients ambulated by nursing staff (as recorded in the electronic health record) out of the total number of ambulatory patients on the unit.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=67 weeks
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=66 weeks
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
n=72 weeks
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
n=66 weeks
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 3: Frequency of Patient Ambulation (Percent of Patients Ambulated by Nursing Staff)
Pre-Intervention (over 6 months)
68.2 percentage of participants per week
Interval 63.6 to 72.8
65.2 percentage of participants per week
Interval 62.3 to 68.1
92.8 percentage of participants per week
Interval 91.5 to 94.1
77.7 percentage of participants per week
Interval 74.9 to 80.4
Aim 3: Frequency of Patient Ambulation (Percent of Patients Ambulated by Nursing Staff)
Active Intervention
86.8 percentage of participants per week
Interval 83.9 to 89.8
74.5 percentage of participants per week
Interval 71.0 to 78.0
91.8 percentage of participants per week
Interval 90.2 to 93.4
84.9 percentage of participants per week
Interval 81.7 to 88.1
Aim 3: Frequency of Patient Ambulation (Percent of Patients Ambulated by Nursing Staff)
Maintenance (over 6 months)
86.6 percentage of participants per week
Interval 83.9 to 89.2
73.8 percentage of participants per week
Interval 71.1 to 76.5
91.2 percentage of participants per week
Interval 89.9 to 92.5
79.7 percentage of participants per week
Interval 76.9 to 82.5

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: pre-intervention, post-intervention (up to about 20 weeks)

Data collected from enrolled nursing staff via paper copies or online link before and after the intervention. The Nurse Fatigue Survey measures experience of fatigue and strain at work and home. It is a 15 item survey scored on a 7 point likert scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) with the 3 subscales of 5 questions each (chronic fatigue, acute fatigue and intershift recovery) scored separately. Items for each subscale are aggregated into a percent of the total highest possible points (30) resulting in a range of scores from 0-100%, higher scores indicate higher fatigue.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=178 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=166 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 3: Nurse Fatigue Survey: Chronic Fatigue Subscale
42.5 percentage of points on a scale
Interval 33.5 to 51.5
40.2 percentage of points on a scale
Interval 28.9 to 51.4

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: pre-intervention, post-intervention (up to about 20 weeks)

Data collected from enrolled nursing staff via paper copies or online link before and after the intervention. The Nurse Fatigue Survey measures experience of fatigue and strain at work and home. It is a 15 item survey scored on a 7 point likert scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) with the 3 subscales of 5 questions each (chronic fatigue, acute fatigue and intershift recovery) scored separately. Items for each subscale are aggregated into a percent of the total highest possible points (30) resulting in a range of scores from 0-100%, higher scores indicate higher fatigue.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=178 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=166 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 3: Nurse Fatigue Survey: Acute Fatigue Subscale
61.5 percentage of points on a scale
Interval 52.5 to 70.5
58.7 percentage of points on a scale
Interval 53.6 to 63.8

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: pre-intervention, post-intervention (up to about 20 weeks)

Data collected from enrolled nursing staff via paper copies or online link before and after the intervention. The Nurse Fatigue Survey measures experience of fatigue and strain at work and home. It is a 15 item survey scored on a 7 point likert scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) with the 3 subscales of 5 questions each (chronic fatigue, acute fatigue and intershift recovery) scored separately. Items for each subscale are aggregated into a percent of the total highest possible points (30) resulting in a range of scores from 0-100%, higher scores indicate higher fatigue.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=178 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=166 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 3: Nurse Fatigue Survey: Intershift Recovery Subscale
52.3 percentage of points on a scale
Interval 45.1 to 59.6
53.0 percentage of points on a scale
Interval 47.0 to 58.9

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: pre-intervention, post-intervention (up to about 20 weeks)

Population: 340 nursing staff members completed all items on the Compassion Satisfaction subscale.

Data collected from enrolled nursing staff via paper copies or online link before and after the intervention. The Professional Quality of Life Survey measures positive and negative experiences within the last 30 days in a 30-item survey scored on a 5 point likert scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). The Compassion Satisfaction subscale has a range of scores from 10-50, with higher scores indicative of higher compassion satisfaction. Please note that for this subscale, scores were transformed before analysis using a Box-Cox (squared) transformation in order to meet the assumption of normally distributed model residuals; in effect the square-scale score has a range from 100-2500, where higher scores are still better. This results in reported least squares means that are very large compared to the original scale.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=177 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=163 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 3: Professional Quality of Life Survey: Compassion Satisfaction
1624.40 score on a scale, squared
Interval 1537.33 to 1711.46
1687.86 score on a scale, squared
Interval 1594.2 to 1781.53

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: pre-intervention, post-intervention (up to about 20 weeks)

Population: 339 nursing staff members completed all items on the Burnout subscale.

Data collected from enrolled nursing staff via paper copies or online link before and after the intervention. The Professional Quality of Life Survey measures positive and negative experiences within the last 30 days in a 30-item survey scored on a 5 point likert scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). There are 3 subscales: Compassion Satisfaction, Burnout, and Secondary Traumatic Stress, each subscale has a range of scores from 10-50, with higher scores indicative of higher compassion satisfaction, higher burnout, and higher secondary traumatic stress.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=177 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=162 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 3: Professional Quality of Life Survey: Burnout
21.84 score on a scale
Interval 20.18 to 23.51
21.59 score on a scale
Interval 19.89 to 23.29

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: pre-intervention, post-intervention (up to about 20 weeks)

Population: 338 nursing staff members completed all items on the Secondary Traumatic Stress subscale.

Data collected from enrolled nursing staff via paper copies or online link before and after the intervention. The Professional Quality of Life Survey measures positive and negative experiences within the last 30 days in a 30-item survey scored on a 5 point likert scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). There are 3 subscales: Compassion Satisfaction, Burnout, and Secondary Traumatic Stress, each subscale has a range of scores from 10-50, with higher scores indicative of higher compassion satisfaction, higher burnout, and higher secondary traumatic stress.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Pre-Intervention Patients
n=176 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Pre-Intervention (Control) period. These patients experienced the pre-interventional standard of care in their unit.
Post-Intervention Patients
n=162 Participants
Patients recruited to the study during the Post-Intervention period, after the run-in/implementation period was complete. These patients experienced care in their unit once the intervention had been fully rolled-out.
Unit 3
Enrolled hospital unit #3. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Unit 4
Enrolled hospital unit #4. This study used a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design, randomizing two units in each of two hospitals in terms of when to begin the intervention. Because all units received the intervention, this can be thought of as a "within-subjects" study in a single arm. However, in some places we report results by unit to allow consideration of differential patterns of response among the units.
Aim 3: Professional Quality of Life Survey: Secondary Traumatic Stress
20.60 score on a scale
Interval 18.73 to 22.47
20.77 score on a scale
Interval 19.48 to 22.06

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: post-intervention (approximately 3-5 months after active intervention launch)

Enrolled nursing staff will be interviewed and interviews will be coded for themes. Themes will be summarized to report by participant count.

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: 6 months pre-intervention, during the 14-week intervention period, and 6 months post-intervention; up to 16 months total

Billing data will be used retrospectively to understand use of PT services on the intervention units at pre-intervention, intervention, and post-intervention data collection periods

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: 6 months pre-intervention, during the 14-week intervention period, and 6 months post-intervention; up to 16 months total

The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAPHS) is a participant self-reported survey that measures patient satisfaction. Participants rank their hospital experience from 1-5, where 5 is the best possible experience.

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: 6 months pre-intervention, during the 14-week intervention period, and 6 months post-intervention; up to 16 months total

The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) is a participant self-reported survey that measures patient satisfaction. Reported here are the Participant Counts of Responses to Strongly disagree/Disagree/Agree/Strongly agree to the following questions: During this hospital stay, staff took my preferences and those of my family or caregiver into account in deciding what my health care needs would be when I left When I left the hospital, I had a good understanding of the things I was responsible for in managing my health When I left the hospital, I clearly understood the purpose for taking each of my medications Analysis will include shifts in the distribution of responses across response options, as well as changes in frequency/percentage of top-box responses (responses of "Strongly agree") relative to all responses.

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: 6 months pre-intervention, during the 14-week intervention period, and 6 months post-intervention; up to 16 months total

The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) is a participant self-reported survey that measures patient satisfaction. Reported here are the Participant Counts With Satisfaction Responses to Definitely no/Probably no/Probably yes/Definitely yes to the following question: Would you recommend this hospital to your friends and family? Analysis will include shifts in the distribution of responses across response options, as well as changes in frequency/percentage of top-box responses (responses of "Definitely Yes") relative to all responses.

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: 6 months pre-intervention, during the 14-week intervention period, and 6 months post-intervention; up to 16 months total

The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAPHS) is a participant self-reported survey that measures patient satisfaction. Participants rank their hospital experience from 0-10, where 10 is the best possible hospital.

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: 6 months pre-intervention, during the 14-week intervention period, and 6 months post-intervention; up to 16 months total

The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAPHS) is a participant self-reported survey that measures patient satisfaction. Reported here are the Participant Counts of whether they went home, to someone else's home, or another facility after discharge.

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: 6 months pre-intervention, during the 14-week intervention period, and 6 months post-intervention; up to 16 months total

Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) is a participant self-reported survey that measures patient satisfaction. Reported here are Participant Counts to questions with response options: Never, Sometimes, Usually, Always. Analysis will include shifts of distribution across response options and changes in frequency/percentage of top-box responses ("Always") relative to all responses. Questions include: During this hospital stay, how often did nurses treat you with courtesy and respect? how often did nurses listen carefully to you? how often did nurses explain things in a way you could understand? after you pressed the call button, how often did you get help as soon as you wanted it? how often were your room and bathroom kept clean? how often was the area around your room quiet at night? How often did you get help in getting to the bathroom or in using a bedpan as soon as you wanted?

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: 6 months pre-intervention, during the 14-week intervention period, and 6 months post-intervention; up to 16 months total

The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAPHS) is a participant self-reported survey that measures patient satisfaction. Reported here are the Participant Counts of those who answered "Yes" to the following Yes or No questions: * During this hospital stay, did you need help from nurses or other hospital staff in getting to the bathroom or in using a bedpan? * During this hospital stay, were you given any medicine that you had not taken before? * During this hospital stay, did doctors, nurses, or other hospital staff talk with you about whether you would have the help you needed when you left the hospital? * During this hospital stay, did you get information in writing about what symptoms or health problems to look out for after you left the hospital? * During this hospital stay, were you admitted to this hospital through the Emergency Room? * Were you visited by a member of our nursing leadership team during your stay?

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

Adverse Events

Pre-Intervention Patients

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 16 deaths

Pre-Intervention Nursing Staff

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Post-Intervention Patients

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 13 deaths

Post-Intervention Nursing Staff

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Additional Information

Dr. Linsey Steege

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Phone: 608-263-5191

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
  • Publication restrictions are in place