Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2025
Luebeck Scale of Basic Mobility among geriatric hospital patients: LSBM and timed LSBM.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Krupp Sonja, Müller Julia, Kasten Meike, Kasper Jennifer
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Luebeck Scale of Basic Mobility (LSBM) assesses seven phases of mobility from the prone position to walking. It was validated on geriatric patients who were unable to complete the timed up and go test (TUG). It showed no floor effect. A ceiling effect is to be assumed for more mobile patients.
OBJECTIVE: To test whether additional measurement of the time required for the transfers (→ t-LSBM) in more mobile patients results in a change-sensitive instrument and what time requirement can be expected for the individual tasks.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In geriatric patients who had completed the TUG on admission to hospital, the LSBM including the time required for the transfers and the TUG were recorded twice with an interval of at least 10 days. The correlations between severity, transfer time and TUG were calculated, as well as the effect size for sensitivity to change.
RESULTS: In this study 85 patients (65.9% women) aged 81.6 ± 6.0 years were recruited, 75 of whom were available for the follow-up examination after a mean of 12.9 days. The sum score of the LSBM decreased from 5.00 ± 2.94 to 3.28 ± 2.23 (p < 0.001), the cumulative time required in the t‑LSBM from 60.3 ± 26.2 to 46.2 ± 18.8 s with a nearly identical effect size of 0.77. This was 0.56 for the TUG.
CONCLUSION: The LSBM is highly sensitive to change even in patients who are able to walk. If all tasks can be completed independently, a supplementary time recording (→ t-LSBM) is recommended to prevent a ceiling effect. This creates a mobility test that is suitable for all geriatric hospital patients and provides the information on mobility in the room required for therapy and discharge planning.
OBJECTIVE: To test whether additional measurement of the time required for the transfers (→ t-LSBM) in more mobile patients results in a change-sensitive instrument and what time requirement can be expected for the individual tasks.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In geriatric patients who had completed the TUG on admission to hospital, the LSBM including the time required for the transfers and the TUG were recorded twice with an interval of at least 10 days. The correlations between severity, transfer time and TUG were calculated, as well as the effect size for sensitivity to change.
RESULTS: In this study 85 patients (65.9% women) aged 81.6 ± 6.0 years were recruited, 75 of whom were available for the follow-up examination after a mean of 12.9 days. The sum score of the LSBM decreased from 5.00 ± 2.94 to 3.28 ± 2.23 (p < 0.001), the cumulative time required in the t‑LSBM from 60.3 ± 26.2 to 46.2 ± 18.8 s with a nearly identical effect size of 0.77. This was 0.56 for the TUG.
CONCLUSION: The LSBM is highly sensitive to change even in patients who are able to walk. If all tasks can be completed independently, a supplementary time recording (→ t-LSBM) is recommended to prevent a ceiling effect. This creates a mobility test that is suitable for all geriatric hospital patients and provides the information on mobility in the room required for therapy and discharge planning.