Feasibility of mobilisation in ICU: a multi-centre point prevalence study of mobility practices in the UK

被引:14
作者
Black, Claire [1 ]
Sanger, Helen [2 ]
Battle, Ceri [3 ]
Eden, Allaina [4 ]
Corner, Evelyn [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Coll London Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, London NW1 2BU, England
[2] Newcastle Tyne Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Queen Victoria Rd, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 4LP, England
[3] Morriston Hosp, Physiotherapy Dept, Swansea SA6 6NL, Wales
[4] Royal Papworth Hosp, Papworth Rd, Cambridge CB2 0AY, England
[5] 33n Ltd, 9 Quy Court,Colliers Lane, Cambridge CB25 9AU, England
关键词
Critical illness; Critical care; Mobilisation; Rehabilitation; Intensive care unit; INTENSIVE-CARE-UNIT; ACUTE RESPIRATORY-FAILURE; REHABILITATION THERAPY;
D O I
10.1186/s13054-023-04508-4
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
BackgroundEarly mobilisation in critical care is recommended within clinical guidance; however, mobilisation prevalence across the UK is unknown. The study aimed to determine the proportion of patients mobilised out of bed within 48-72 h, to describe their physiological status, and to compare this to published consensus safety recommendations for out-of-bed activity.MethodsA UK cross-sectional, multi-centre, observational study of adult critical care mobility practices was conducted. Demographic, physiological and organ support data, mobility level, and rationale for not mobilising out of bed, were collected for all patients on 3rd March 2022. Patients were categorised as: Group 1-mobilised ICU Mobility Scale (IMS) >= 3; Group 2-not-mobilised IMS < 3 with physiological reasons; or Group 3-not-mobilised IMS < 3 with non-physiological barriers to mobilisation. Rationale for the decision to not mobilise was collected qualitatively. Regression analysis was used to compare the physiological parameters of Group 1 (mobilised) versus Group 2 (not-mobilised with physiological reasons). Patients were stratified as 'low-risk', 'potential-risk' or 'high-risk' using published risk of adverse event ratings.ResultsData were collected for 960 patients across 84 UK critical care units. Of these 393 (41%) mobilised, 416 (43%) were not-mobilised due to physiological reasons and 151 (16%) were not mobilised with non-physiological reasons. A total of 371 patients had been admitted for <= 3 days, of whom 180 (48%) were mobilised, 140 (38%) were not mobilised with physiological reasons, and 51 (14%) were not mobilised with non-physiological reasons. Of the 809 without non-physiological barriers to mobilisation, 367 (45%) had a low risk of adverse event rating and 120 (15%) a potential risk, of whom 309 (84%) and 78 (65%) mobilised, respectively. Mobility was associated with a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 1 to + 1, lower doses of vasoactive agents, a lower inspired oxygen requirement.ConclusionAlthough only 40% of patients mobilised out of bed, 89% of those defined 'low-risk' did so. There is significant overlap in physiological parameters for mobilisation versus non-mobilisation groups, suggesting a comprehensive physiological assessment is vital in decision making rather than relying on arbitrary time points.Clinical Trials registration: NCT05281705 Registered March 16, 2022. Retrospectively registered.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2009, NICE clinical guideline 43
[2]   Vasoactive-Inotropic Score: Evolution, Clinical Utility, and Pitfalls [J].
Belletti, Alessandro ;
Lerose, Caterina Cecilia ;
Zangrillo, Alberto ;
Landoni, Giovanni .
JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA, 2021, 35 (10) :3067-3077
[3]  
Berney SC, 2013, CRIT CARE RESUSC, V15, P260
[4]   Early mobilisation in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic integrative review of definitions and activities [J].
Clarissa, Catherine ;
Salisbury, Lisa ;
Rodgers, Sheila ;
Kean, Susanne .
JOURNAL OF INTENSIVE CARE, 2019, 7 (1)
[5]   Exercise rehabilitation for patients with critical illness: a randomized controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up [J].
Denehy, Linda ;
Skinner, Elizabeth H. ;
Edbrooke, Lara ;
Haines, Kimberley ;
Warrillow, Stephen ;
Hawthorne, Graeme ;
Gough, Karla ;
Vander Hoorn, Steven ;
Morris, Meg E. ;
Berney, Sue .
CRITICAL CARE, 2013, 17 (04)
[6]  
Dong ZH, 2014, WORLD J EMERG MED, V5, P48, DOI [10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2014.01.008, 10.5847/wjem.j.issn.1920-8642.2014.01.008]
[7]   THE SICK AND THE WEAK: NEUROPATHIES/MYOPATHIES IN THE CRITICALLY ILL [J].
Friedrich, O. ;
Reid, M. B. ;
Van den Berghe, G. ;
Vanhorebeek, I. ;
Hermans, G. ;
Rich, M. M. ;
Larsson, L. .
PHYSIOLOGICAL REVIEWS, 2015, 95 (03) :1025-1109
[8]   Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support [J].
Harris, Paul A. ;
Taylor, Robert ;
Thielke, Robert ;
Payne, Jonathon ;
Gonzalez, Nathaniel ;
Conde, Jose G. .
JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2009, 42 (02) :377-381
[9]   Feasibility and inter-rater reliability of the ICU Mobility Scale [J].
Hodgson, Carol ;
Needham, Dale ;
Haines, Kimberley ;
Bailey, Michael ;
Ward, Alison ;
Harrold, Megan ;
Young, Paul ;
Zanni, Jennifer ;
Buhr, Heidi ;
Higgins, Alisa ;
Presneill, Jeff ;
Berney, Sue .
HEART & LUNG, 2014, 43 (01) :19-24
[10]   Physiotherapy management of intensive care unit-acquired weakness [J].
Hodgson, Carol L. ;
Tipping, Claire J. .
JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY, 2017, 63 (01) :4-10