Safe Mobility in Hospitalised Older Adults: A Concept Analysis

Aim To conduct a concept analysis of ‘safe mobility’, with specific application in hospitalised older adults, identifying its defining attributes, antecedents and consequences. Background The promotion of safe mobility is essential for maintaining the functionality of hospitalised older adults. However, this idea is not yet clearly defined in the scientific literature, requiring a conceptual analysis for better understanding and applicability in nursing practice. Design Concept analysis. Methods The concept analysis methodology of Walker and Avant was employed, consisting of eight steps. Sources from the scientific literature (BDENF/VHL, Scopus, CINAHL/EBSCO, Embase, Web of Science, PEDro, MEDLINE/PubMed and CAPES Thesis and Dissertation Catalogue, as outlined in a scoping review previously published by the authors) and terminologies from dictionaries and nursing practice, such as SNOMED CT, ICNP, NANDA, NIC and NOC, were analysed. Results The concept of ‘safe mobility’ does not have a consolidated definition but was identified through three defining attributes: active movement, prevention of fall‐related harm and prevention of immobility‐related harm. The antecedents include the older adults' conditions, adaptation of the hospital environment, training of the multidisciplinary team, patient behaviour and family involvement. The consequences involve the maintenance of functionality, improvement of quality of life, reduction of hospital length of stay and costs, as well as a decrease in rates of readmission, referrals to long‐term care institutions and mortality. Conclusion The concept analysis revealed that safe mobility involves promoting active movement and preventing harm related to both immobility and falls. Implications for the Profession and Patient Care Strategies based on this concept can improve the quality of life of older adults, reduce complications and optimise hospital costs. No Patient or Public Contribution This concept analysis examines existing literature and does not require patient‐related data collection. The methodological approach does not necessitate collaboration with the public.