Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Get Up and Go -Home

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and aims: One of the most important objectives of a rehabilitation program is to improve patients’ mobility. Mobility measures are necessary in evaluating treatment effectiveness. The aims of the present study were to assess the usefulness of the “Timed Get Up and Go” (TUG) test as a mobility measure for patients attending a day hospital, and as an additional tool in assisting a multidisciplinary team in clinical decision-making regarding length of stay in a day hospital. Methods: Two hundred and thirty elderly patients, admitted during 2000, were assessed by the TUG test and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) on admission and at discharge. The patients were divided into four performance categories (TUG score <20; 20.01–40; 40.01–60 and >60 seconds). The sensitivity of the test to changes in patients’ mobility level and the relationship between it and other measures were assessed. Results: Mean TUG score on admission was 32.6±24.2 seconds, and upon discharge 21.8±18.3 seconds. The difference in score changes between orthopedic patients (14.2 sec), patients with chronic disabling diseases (10.3 sec) and stroke patients (10.1) was statistically significant (p=0.013). On admission, 35.7% performed the TUG test in <20 seconds and upon discharge in 60.9%. A significant negative correlation was found between TUG scores and FIM and motor FIM scores on admission and at discharge. Conclusions: The TUG test is a sensitive test for measuring changes in the mobility level of patients attending a day hospital. Easy to carry out, the test furnishes additional information that may assist medical personnel in deciding criteria for discharge readiness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chiou II, Burnett CN. Values of activities of daily livings. A survey of stroke patients and their home therapists. Phys Ther 1985; 65:901–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rossier P, Wade DT. Validity and reliability comparison of 4 mobility measures in patients presenting with neurologic impairment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 9–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Spilg EG, Martin BJ, Mitchell SL. A comparison of mobility assessments in a geriatric day hospital. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 296–300.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Salbach NM, Mayo NE, Higgins J, Ahmed S, Finch LE, Richards CL. Responsiveness and predictability of gait speed and other disability measures in acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 1204–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “up & go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991; 39: 142–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Steffen TM, Hacker TA, Mollinger L. Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling elderly people: six-minute walk test, Berg balance scale, Timed Up & Go test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther 2002; 82: 128–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hughes C, Osman C, Woods AK. Relationship among performance on stair ambulation, Functional Reach and Timed Up and Go tests in older adults. Issues on Ageing 1998; 21: 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shumway-Cook A, Brauer S, Woollacott M. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go test. Phys Ther 2000; 80: 896–903.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mathias S, Nayak US, Isaacs B. Balance in elderly patients: the “get-up and go” test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1986; 67: 387–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Morris S, Morris ME, Iansek R. Reliability of measurements obtained with the Timed “Up & Go” test in people with Parkinson disease. Phys Ther 2001; 81: 810–18.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schoppen T, Boonstra A, Groothoff JW, de Vries J, Goeken LN, Elisma WH. TheTimed “up and go” test: reliability and validity in persons with unilateral lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 825–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Siggeirsdottir K, Jonsson B, Jonsson H Jr, Iwarsson S. The timed ‘Up & Go’ is dependent on chair type. Clin Rehabil 2002; 16: 609–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Freter S, Fruchter N. Relationship between timed ‘up and go’ and gait time in an elderly orthopaedic rehabilitation population. Clin Rehabil 2000; 14: 96–101.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud 1988; 10: 61–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mendelsohn ME, Leidl DS, Overend TJ, Petrella R. Specificity of functional mobility measures in older adults after hip fracture. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 82: 766–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bischoff HA, Stahelin HB, Monsch AU, et al. Identifying a cut-off point for normal mobility: a comparison of the timed ‘up and go’ test in community-dwelling and institutionalized elderly women. Age Ageing 2003; 32: 315–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil 1987; 1: 6–18.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hamilton BB, Granger CV. Disability outcomes following inpatient rehabilitation for stroke. Phys Ther 1994; 74: 494–503.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHuge PR. “Mini-Mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–98.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hershkovitz A, Gottlieb D, Beloosesky Y, Brill S. Program evaluation of a geriatric rehabilitation day hospital. Clin Rehab 2003; 17: 750–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Toulotte C, Fabre C, Dangremont B, Lensel G, Thevenon A. Effects of physical training on the physical capacity of frail, demented patients with a history of falling: a randomized controlled trial. Age Ageing 2003; 32: 67–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Carmeli E, Reznick AZ, Coleman R, Carmeli V. Muscle strength and mass of lower extremities in relation to functional abilities in elderly adults. Gerontology 2000; 46: 249–57.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Shimada H, Uchiyama Y, Kakurai S. Specific effects of balance and gait exercises on physical function among frail elderly. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 472–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Visser M, Harris TB, Fox KM, et al. Change in muscle mass and muscle strength after a hip fracture: relationship to mobility recovery. J Gerontol 2000; 55: M434–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Madsen OR, Lauridsen UB, Sorensen OH. Quadriceps strength in women with a previous hip fracture: relationships to physical ability and bone mass. Scand J Rehabil Med 2000; 32: 37–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Morrison RS, Magaziner J, McLaughlin MA et al. The impact of post-operative pain on outcomes following hip fracture. Pain 2003; 103: 303–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rockwood K, Awalt E, Carver D, Macknight C. Feasibility and measurement properties of the functional reach and the timed up and go tests in the Canadian study of health and aging. J Gerontol 55: M70–3.

  28. Stineman MG, Fiedler RC, Granger CV, Maislin G. Functional task benchmarks for stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 79: 497–504.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Alexander MP. Stroke rehabilitation outcome. A potential use of predictive variables to establish levels of care. Stroke 1994; 25: 128–34.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Carmeli E, Coleman R, Omar HL, Brown-Cross D. Do we allow elderly pedestrians sufficient time to cross the street in safety? J Aging Phys Activity 2000; 8: 51–8.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lee Y, Kim JH, Lee KJ, Han G, Kim JL. Association of cognitive status with functional limitation and disability in older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res 2005; 17: 20–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Janssen HC, Samson MM, Meeuwsen IB, Duursma SA, Verhaar HJ. Strength, mobility and falling in women referred to a geriatric outpatient clinic. Aging Clin Exp Res 2004; 16: 122–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Janssen HC, Samson MM, Verhaar H. Vitamin D deficiency, muscle function, and falls in elderly people. Am J Clin Nutr 2002; 75: 611–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ‘Beit Rivka’ Geriatric Rehabilitation Center, 4 Hachamisha St, Petach, Tikva, 49245, Israel

    Avital Hershkovitz MD & Shai Brill

  2. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Avital Hershkovitz MD & Shai Brill

Authors
  1. Avital Hershkovitz MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shai Brill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Avital Hershkovitz MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hershkovitz, A., Brill, S. Get Up and Go -Home. Aging Clin Exp Res 18, 301–306 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03324663

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03324663

Key words

Search

Navigation