Claire J. Tipping

Expert consensus and recommendations on safety criteria for active mobilization of mechanically ventilated critically ill adults.

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to develop consensus recommendations on safety parameters for mobilizing adult, mechanically ventilated, intensive care unit (ICU) patients.MethodsA systematic literature review was followed by a meeting of 23 multidisciplinary ICU experts to seek consensus regarding the safe mobilization of mechanically ventilated patients.ResultsSafety considerations were summarized in four categories: respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological and other. Consensus was achieved on all criteria for safe mobilization, with the exception being levels of vasoactive agents. Intubation via an endotracheal tube was not a contraindication to early mobilization and a fraction of inspired oxygen less than 0.6 with a percutaneous oxygen saturation more than 90% and a respiratory rate less than 30 breaths/minute were considered safe criteria for in- and out-of-bed mobilization if there were no other contraindications. At an international meeting, 94 multidisciplinary ICU clinicians concurred with the proposed recommendations.ConclusionConsensus recommendations regarding safety criteria for mobilization of adult, mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU have the potential to guide ICU rehabilitation whilst minimizing the risk of adverse events.

Barriers and facilitators to early mobilisation in Intensive Care: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES To determine the barriers and facilitators of early mobilisation in the Intensive Care Unit. BACKGROUND It is well established that mobilising critically ill patients has many benefits, however it is not occurring as frequently as expected. The causes and ways to change this are not clearly understood. METHODS A qualitative descriptive study involving focus groups with medical, nursing and physiotherapy clinicians, from an Australian quaternary hospital Intensive Care Unit. RESULTS The major themes related to barriers included the culture of the Intensive Care Unit; communication; and a lack of resources. Major themes associated with facilitating early mobilisation included organisational change; improved communication between medical units; and improved resources. CONCLUSIONS Early mobilisation was considered an important aspect of critically ill patients care by all clinicians. Several major barriers to mobilisation were identified, which included unit culture, lack of resources, prioritisation and leadership. A dedicated mobility team led by physiotherapists in the ICU setting could be a viable option to address the identified barriers related to mobility.

A Binational Multicenter Pilot Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial of Early Goal-Directed Mobilization in the ICU*

Objectives:To determine if the early goal-directed mobilization intervention could be delivered to patients receiving mechanical ventilation with increased maximal levels of activity compared with standard care. Design:A pilot randomized controlled trial. Setting:Five ICUs in Australia and New Zealand. Participants:Fifty critically ill adults mechanically ventilated for greater than 24 hours. Intervention:Patients were randomly assigned to either early goal-directed mobilization (intervention) or to standard care (control). Early goal-directed mobilization comprised functional rehabilitation treatment conducted at the highest level of activity possible for that patient assessed by the ICU mobility scale while receiving mechanical ventilation. Measurements and Main Results:The ICU mobility scale, strength, ventilation duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, and total inpatient (acute and rehabilitation) stay as well as 6-month post-ICU discharge health-related quality of life, activities of daily living, and anxiety and depression were recorded. The mean age was 61 years and 60% were men. The highest level of activity (ICU mobility scale) recorded during the ICU stay between the intervention and control groups was mean (95% CI) 7.3 (6.3–8.3) versus 5.9 (4.9–6.9), p = 0.05. The proportion of patients who walked in ICU was almost doubled with early goal-directed mobilization (intervention n = 19 [66%] vs control n = 8 [38%]; p = 0.05). There was no difference in total inpatient stay (d) between the intervention versus control groups (20 [15–35] vs 34 [18–43]; p = 0.37). There were no adverse events. Conclusions:Key Practice Points: Delivery of early goal-directed mobilization within a randomized controlled trial was feasible, safe and resulted in increased duration and level of active exercises.

The ICU Mobility Scale Has Construct and Predictive Validity and Is Responsive. A Multicenter Observational Study

RATIONALE The ICU Mobility Scale (IMS) is a measure of mobility milestones in critically ill patients. OBJECTIVES This study aimed to determine the validity and responsiveness of the IMS from a prospective cohort study of adults admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS Construct and predictive validity were assessed by comparing IMS values at ICU discharge in 192 patients to other variables using Spearman rank correlation coefficient, Mann-Whitney U tests, and logistic regression. Responsiveness was assessed using change over time, effect size, floor and ceiling effects, and percentage of patients showing change. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS The IMS at ICU discharge demonstrated a moderate correlation with muscle strength (r = 0.64, P < 0.001). There was a significant difference between the IMS at ICU discharge in patients with ICU-acquired weakness (median, 4.0; interquartile range, 3.0-5.0) compared with patients without (median, 8.0; interquartile range, 5.0-8.0; P < 0.001). Increasing IMS values at ICU discharge were associated with survival to 90 days (odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.66) and discharge home (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32) but not with return to work at 6 months (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.92-1.28). The IMS was responsive with a significant change from study enrollment to ICU discharge (d = 0.8, P < 0.001), with IMS values increasing in 86% of survivors during ICU admission. No substantial floor (14% scored 0) or ceiling (4% scored 10) effects were present at ICU discharge. CONCLUSIONS Our findings support the validity and responsiveness of the IMS as a measure of mobility in the ICU.

Physiotherapy management of intensive care unit-acquired weakness

[Hodgson CL, Tipping CJ (2016) Physiotherapy management of intensive care unit-acquired weakness.Journal of Physiotherapy63: 4-10].

Early Mobilization of Patients in Intensive Care: Organization, Communication and Safety Factors that Influence Translation into Clinical Practice

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2018. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2018. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901.

The minimal important difference of the ICU mobility scale

Background: The intensive care unit mobility scale (IMS) is reliable, valid and responsive. Establishing the minimal important difference (MID) of the IMS is important in order to detect clinically significant changes in mobilization. Objective: To calculate the MID of the IMS in intensive care unit patients. Methods: Prospective multi center observational study. The IMS was collected from admission and discharge physiotherapy assessments. To calculate the MID we used; anchor based methods (global rating of change) and two distribution‐based methods (standard error of the mean and effect size). Results: We enrolled 184 adult patients; mean age 62.0 years, surgical, trauma, and medical. Anchor based methods gave a MID of 3 with area under the curve 0.94 (95% CI 0.89‐0.97). The two distribution based methods gave a MID between 0.89 and 1.40. Conclusion: These data increase our understanding of the clinimetric properties of the IMS, improving its utility for clinical practice and research.