Skip to main content
Innovation in Aging logoLink to Innovation in Aging
. 2024 Dec 31;8(Suppl 1):1250–1251. doi: 10.1093/geroni/igae098.4000

IMPACT OF 4MS ON OUTCOMES FOR HOSPITALIZED OLDER ADULTS IN AN AGE-FRIENDLY SYSTEM

Justin Lam 1, Susan Kwiatek 2, Maria Carney 3, Philip Solomon 4, Mark Tursi 5, Christian Nouryan 6, Edith Burns 7
PMCID: PMC11692116

Abstract

Introduction

The Institute for Healthcare Improvement identifies four essential components (the 4Ms) of high-quality care for older adults within an Age-Friendly Health System (AFHS): What Matters, Medication, Mentation, and Mobility. This framework allows healthcare providers to address and act on key issues, such as goals-of-care discussions, the in-patient use of potentially harmful medications (e.g. benzodiazepines, opioids, hypnotics), delirium prevention, and mobility maintenance.

Methods

EMR data pulled manually and through aggregated dashboards. Population/Setting: patients ≥65 admitted June-July 2024 to eight hospitals (5 community, 2 tertiary, 1 quaternary) within a large integrated health system, all committed to care excellence. Patients grouped into categories based on the number of assessed M’s. Positive screens were reviewed for “act-ons.” Patient outcomes: LOS, disposition, 30-day readmissions and ED visits.

Results

Of 2,337 adults aged ≥65, 0.3% had no assessments, 10.6% had one assessment, 39.6% two assessments, 40.3% three assessments, and 9.2% had all four assessments. Of the 118 patients who had all 4Ms assessed, chart review showed 42% had an ‘act-on’ for What Matters, 43% act-on for Medication, 22% act-on for Mentation, 83% act-on for Mobility. Mean LOS 11.8 days (range: 3-72); June 30-day readmissions: 10.2%. Conclusions: A minority of patients had all 4Ms assessed. Act-ons were documented most frequently for Mobility, less for other M’s. Data on outcomes for ≤3M assessments is being analyzed and compared to those with 4Ms. This data will contribute to the growing evidence base for all 4Ms in AFHS transformation.


Articles from Innovation in Aging are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES