Evaluation of the Mobile Acute Care of the Elderly (MACE) Service | Geriatrics | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.204.227.34. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Creditor MC. Hazards of hospitalization of the elderly.  Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(3):219-2238417639PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
 Serious reportable events. 2012. http://www.qualityforum.org/Topics/SREs/Serious_Reportable_Events.aspx. Accessed August 13, 2012
3.
Bakker FC, Robben SH, Olde Rikkert MG. Effects of hospital-wide interventions to improve care for frail older inpatients: a systematic review.  BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(8):680-69121355019PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Baztán JJ, Suárez-García FM, López-Arrieta J, Rodríguez-Mañas L, Rodríguez-Artalejo F. Effectiveness of acute geriatric units on functional decline, living at home, and case fatality among older patients admitted to hospital for acute medical disorders: meta-analysis.  BMJ. 2009;338:b5019164393PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Counsell SR, Holder CM, Liebenauer LL,  et al.  Effects of a multicomponent intervention on functional outcomes and process of care in hospitalized older patients: a randomized controlled trial of Acute Care for Elders (ACE) in a community hospital.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(12):1572-158111129745PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Landefeld CS, Palmer RM, Kresevic DM, Fortinsky RH, Kowal J. A randomized trial of care in a hospital medical unit especially designed to improve the functional outcomes of acutely ill older patients.  N Engl J Med. 1995;332(20):1338-13447715644PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Palmer RM, Landefeld CS, Kresevic D, Kowal J. A medical unit for the acute care of the elderly.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994;42(5):545-5528176151PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Agostini JV, Baker DI, Bogardus ST Jr. Geriatric evaluation and management units for hospitalized patients. In: Shojania KG, Duncan BW, McDonald KM, Wachter RM, eds. Making Health Care Safer: A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2001
9.
Barnes DE, Palmer RM, Kresevic DM,  et al.  Acute care for elders units produced shorter hospital stays at lower cost while maintaining patients' functional status.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(6):1227-123622665834PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Jayadevappa R, Bloom BS, Raziano DB, Lavizzo-Mourey R. Dissemination and characteristics of Acute Care for Elders (ACE) units in the United States.  Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19(1):220-22712701953PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Farber JI, Korc-Grodzicki B, Du Q, Leipzig RM, Siu AL. Operational and quality outcomes of a Mobile Acute Care for the Elderly service.  J Hosp Med. 2011;6(6):358-36321834119PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Charpentier PA, Bogardus ST, Inouye SK. An algorithm for prospective individual matching in a non-randomized clinical trial.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(11):1166-117311675169PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Inouye SK, Bogardus ST Jr, Charpentier PA,  et al.  A multicomponent intervention to prevent delirium in hospitalized older patients.  N Engl J Med. 1999;340(9):669-67610053175PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, Balkin S, Siegal AP, Horwitz RI. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method: a new method for detection of delirium.  Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(12):941-9482240918PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Chang WC, Chan C, Slaughter SE, Cartwright D. Evaluating the FONE FIM, II: concurrent validity & influencing factors.  J Outcome Meas. 1997;1(4):259-2859661724PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Chang WC, Slaughter S, Cartwright D, Chan C. Evaluating the FONE FIM, I: construct validity.  J Outcome Meas. 1997;1(3):192-2189661721PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Pollak N, Rheault W, Stoecker JL. Reliability and validity of the FIM for persons aged 80 years and above from a multilevel continuing care retirement community.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(10):1056-10618857886PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Doble SE, Fisher AG. The dimensionality and validity of the Older Americans Resources and Services (OARS) Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scale.  J Outcome Meas. 1998;2(1):4-249661728PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Coleman EA, Smith JD, Frank JC, Eilertsen TB, Thiare JN, Kramer AM. Development and testing of a measure designed to assess the quality of care transitions.  Int J Integr Care. 2002;2:e0216896392PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
 NQF endorses HCAHPS patient perception survey.  Healthcare Benchmarks Qual Improv. 2005;12(7):82-8316021980PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Jha AK, Orav EJ, Zheng J, Epstein AM. Patients' perception of hospital care in the United States.  N Engl J Med. 2008;359(18):1921-193118971493PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Revicki DA, Spritzer KL, Cella D. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global items.  Qual Life Res. 2009;18(7):873-88019543809PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Revicki DA, Kawata AK, Harnam N, Chen WH, Hays RD, Cella D. Predicting EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks in a United States sample.  Qual Life Res. 2009;18(6):783-79119472072PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(11):1245-12517722560PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.  J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-3833558716PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system.  Crit Care Med. 1985;13(10):818-8293928249PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
McCulloch CE, Neuhaus JM. Generalized linear mixed models. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2005
28.
Covinsky KE, Palmer RM, Kresevic DM,  et al.  Improving functional outcomes in older patients: lessons from an Acute Care for Elders unit.  Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1998;24(2):63-769547681PubMedGoogle Scholar
Original Investigation
June 10, 2013

Evaluation of the Mobile Acute Care of the Elderly (MACE) Service

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York (Drs Hung, Farber, and Siu); Health Services Research and Development Service and the Geriatrics Research Education Clinical Center, James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bronx, New York (Drs Hung and Siu); and Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine and Yale–New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Connecticut (Dr Ross).

JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(11):990-996. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.478
Abstract

Importance Older adults are particularly vulnerable to adverse events during hospitalization for acute medical problems. The Mobile Acute Care of the Elderly (MACE) service is a novel model of care delivered by an interdisciplinary team, designed to deliver specialized care to hospitalized older adults to improve patient outcomes.

Objective To evaluate the impact of the MACE service when compared with general medical service (usual care).

Design Prospective, matched cohort study.

Setting The Mount Sinai Hospital, an urban tertiary acute care hospital.

Participants Patients aged 75 years or older admitted because of an acute illness to either the MACE service or usual care. Patients were matched for age, diagnosis, and ability to ambulate independently.

Exposures Admission to the MACE service when compared with admission to usual care.

Main Outcome Measures Patient outcomes included incidence of adverse events, including falls, pressure ulcers, restraint use, and catheter-associated urinary tract infections, along with length of stay, rehospitalization within 30 days, functional status at 30 days, and patient satisfaction during care transitions, measured with the 3-item Care Transition Measure.

Results A total of 173 matched pairs of patients were recruited. The mean (SD) age was 85.2 (5.3) and 84.7 (5.4) years in the MACE and usual-care groups, respectively. After adjustment for confounders, patients in the MACE group were less likely to experience adverse events (9.5% vs 17.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.88; P = .04) and had shorter hospital stays (0.8 days, 95% CI, 0.7-0.9; P = .001) than patients receiving usual care. Patients in the MACE group were not less likely to have a lower rate of rehospitalization within 30 days than those in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.39-2.10; P = .83). Functional status did not differ between the 2 groups. Care Transition Measure scores were 7.4 points (95% CI, 2.9-11.9; P = .001) higher in the MACE group.

Conclusions and Relevance Admission to the MACE service was associated with lower rates of adverse events, shorter hospital stays, and better satisfaction. This model has the potential to improve care outcomes among hospitalized older adults.

Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00927160

×