Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: Early 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Black, Claire, Sanger, Helen, Battle, Ceri, Eden, Allaina, Corner, Evelyn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10233540/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37264471
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04508-4
_version_ 1785052276237271040
author Black, Claire
Sanger, Helen
Battle, Ceri
Eden, Allaina
Corner, Evelyn
author_facet Black, Claire
Sanger, Helen
Battle, Ceri
Eden, Allaina
Corner, Evelyn
author_sort Black, Claire
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Early 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Data 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. CONCLUSION: Although 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-023-04508-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10233540
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102335402023-06-01 Feasibility of mobilisation in ICU: a multi-centre point prevalence study of mobility practices in the UK Black, Claire Sanger, Helen Battle, Ceri Eden, Allaina Corner, Evelyn Crit Care Research BACKGROUND: Early 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Data 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. CONCLUSION: Although 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-023-04508-4. BioMed Central 2023-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10233540/ /pubmed/37264471 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04508-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Black, Claire
Sanger, Helen
Battle, Ceri
Eden, Allaina
Corner, Evelyn
Feasibility of mobilisation in ICU: a multi-centre point prevalence study of mobility practices in the UK
title Feasibility of mobilisation in ICU: a multi-centre point prevalence study of mobility practices in the UK
title_full Feasibility of mobilisation in ICU: a multi-centre point prevalence study of mobility practices in the UK
title_fullStr Feasibility of mobilisation in ICU: a multi-centre point prevalence study of mobility practices in the UK
title_full_unstemmed Feasibility of mobilisation in ICU: a multi-centre point prevalence study of mobility practices in the UK
title_short Feasibility of mobilisation in ICU: a multi-centre point prevalence study of mobility practices in the UK
title_sort feasibility of mobilisation in icu: a multi-centre point prevalence study of mobility practices in the uk
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10233540/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37264471
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04508-4
work_keys_str_mv AT blackclaire feasibilityofmobilisationinicuamulticentrepointprevalencestudyofmobilitypracticesintheuk
AT sangerhelen feasibilityofmobilisationinicuamulticentrepointprevalencestudyofmobilitypracticesintheuk
AT battleceri feasibilityofmobilisationinicuamulticentrepointprevalencestudyofmobilitypracticesintheuk
AT edenallaina feasibilityofmobilisationinicuamulticentrepointprevalencestudyofmobilitypracticesintheuk
AT cornerevelyn feasibilityofmobilisationinicuamulticentrepointprevalencestudyofmobilitypracticesintheuk