Implementation, Feasibility, and Acceptability of MATCH to Prevent Iatrogenic Disability in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Question of Geriatric Care Program?

Abstract

Senior adults (>age 65) represent almost 20% of the population but account for 48% of hospital bed occupancy. In older adults, hospitalization often results in functional decline (i.e., iatrogenic disability) and, consequently, the loss of autonomy. Physical activity (PA) has been shown to counteract these declines effectively. Nevertheless, PA is not implemented in standard clinical practice. We previously showed that MATCH, a pragmatic, specific, adapted, and unsupervised PA program, was feasible and acceptable in a geriatric assessment unit (GAU) and a COVID-19 geriatric unit. This feasibility study aims to confirm that this tool could be implemented in other geriatric care programs, notably a geriatric rehabilitation unit (GRU) and a post-acute care unit (PACU), in order to reach the maximum number of older patients. Eligibility and consent were assessed by the physician for all the patients admitted to the three units (GAU, GRU, and PACU). The rehabilitation therapist taught each participant one of the five PA programs based on their mobility score on the decisional tree. Implementation (eligibility (%): patients eligible/number admitted and delay of implementation: number of days until prescription); feasibility (adherence (%): number sessions completed/number sessions prescribed and walking time (%): total walking time/time prescribed time); and acceptability (healthcare team (%): tool adequacy (yes/no) and patient: System Usability Scale questionnaire (SUS: x/100)) were evaluated and analyzed using a Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA or Fisher’s exact test. Eligibility was different between the units (GRU = 32.5% vs. PACU = 26.6% vs. GAU = 56.0%; p < 0.001), but the time before implementation was similar (days: GRU = 5.91 vs. PACU = 5.88 vs. GAU = 4.78; p > 0.05). PA adherence (GRU = 83.5% vs. PACU = 71.9% vs. GAU = 74.3%) and walking time (100% in all units) were similar (p > 0.05). Patients (SUS: GRU = 74.6 vs. PACU = 77.2 vs. GAU = 77.2; p > 0.05) and clinicians (adequacy (yes; %): GRU = 78.3%; PACU = 76.0%; GAU = 72.2%; p > 0.05) found MATCH acceptable. Overall, MATCH was implementable, feasible, and acceptable in a GAU, GRU, and PACU. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our results and evaluate the health benefits of MATCH compared with usual care.