[The De Morton Mobility Index for evaluation of early geriatric rehabilitation].
BACKGROUND
The timed up and go (TUG) test and the Tinetti test are most frequently used in Germany to document the success of rehabilitation in early geriatric rehabilitation. However, there has been some uncertainty whether these instruments can describe the entire spectrum of mobility with adequate precision and whether they can be successfully applied for repeated assessments during rehabilitation. Against this background the De Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) has been developed and validated.


OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of the DEMMI compared to the TUG and Tinetti tests in early geriatric rehabilitation.


METHODS
Ceiling and floor effects of the DEMMI, the TUG test, the Tinetti test and the Barthel Index (BI) were determined. Correlations were calculated using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Effects on the DEMMI were estimated through multiple linear regression.


RESULTS
A total of 144 patients with an average age of 84.91 years (SD ±5.77) and 65.97 % females participated in this study. The mean value for the DEMMI was 33.45 (SD ±15.37) points at admission and 43.90 (SD ±15.55) at discharge (n = 144). Floor effects were observed in the TUG test in 84.72 % (n = 122) of patients at admission and in 60.42 % (n = 87) at discharge. The DEMMI, Tinetti test and BI showed no floor or ceiling effects. The correlation between the DEMMI and the TUG test was -0.48 at admission and -0.49 at discharge, between the DEMMI and the Tinetti test 0.75 and 0.82, respectively and between the DEMMI and the BI 0.54 and 0.66, respectively (p < 0,01).


CONCLUSIONS
Significant correlations with the TUG test, the Tinetti test and the BI, together with the lack of floor and ceiling effects provide evidence that the DEMMI is an appropriate tool to assess mobility in early geriatric rehabilitation. The lack of floor and ceiling effects appears to make the DEMMI a superior tool compared to the TUG test.
Universitätsklinik für Geriatrie am Klinikum Oldenburg, Fakultät für Medizin und Gesundheitswissenschaften, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland. lena.dasenbrock@uni-oldenburg.de.
L
L
Dasenbrock
Universitätsklinik für Geriatrie, Klinikum Oldenburg gGmbH, Oldenburg, Deutschland.
T
T
Berg
Universitätsklinik für Geriatrie, Klinikum Oldenburg gGmbH, Oldenburg, Deutschland.
S
S
Lurz
Universitätsklinik für Geriatrie, Klinikum Oldenburg gGmbH, Oldenburg, Deutschland.
E
E
Beimforde
Universitätsklinik für Geriatrie am Klinikum Oldenburg, Fakultät für Medizin und Gesundheitswissenschaften, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland.
R
R
Diekmann
Abteilung Epidemiologie und Biometrie im Department Versorgungsforschung, Fakultät für Medizin und Gesundheitswissenschaften, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland.
F
F
Sobotka
Universitätsklinik für Geriatrie am Klinikum Oldenburg, Fakultät für Medizin und Gesundheitswissenschaften, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland.|Universitätsklinik für Geriatrie, Klinikum Oldenburg gGmbH, Oldenburg, Deutschland.
J M
JM
Bauer
D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D005080:Exercise Test / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D015577:Geriatric Assessment / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D051346:Mobility Limitation; D009069:Movement Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012720:Severity of Illness Index
Geriatric assessment; Hospitalization; Mobility; Treatment outcome