University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Victoria Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4LP, UK.
Crit Care. 2023 Jun 1;27(1):217. doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04508-4.
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.
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.
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.
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.
NCT05281705 Registered March 16, 2022. Retrospectively registered.
临床指南建议在重症监护中进行早期活动,但英国的活动普及率尚不清楚。本研究旨在确定在 48-72 小时内离床活动的患者比例,描述其生理状况,并将其与已发表的离床活动安全性共识建议进行比较。
本研究为英国一项横断面、多中心、观察性重症监护移动性实践研究。于 2022 年 3 月 3 日收集所有患者的人口统计学、生理学和器官支持数据、活动水平以及不能离床活动的理由。患者分为三组:组 1-ICU 移动性量表(IMS)得分≥3 分,离床活动;组 2-IMS 评分<3 分但有生理原因不能离床活动;或组 3-IMS 评分<3 分但有非生理原因不能离床活动。定性收集不能离床活动的理由。回归分析用于比较组 1(活动)与组 2(有生理原因但不能活动)的生理参数。使用发表的不良事件风险评分将患者分为“低风险”、“潜在风险”或“高风险”。
在 84 家英国重症监护病房共收集了 960 名患者的数据。其中 393 名(41%)患者离床活动,416 名(43%)因生理原因不能离床活动,151 名(16%)因非生理原因不能离床活动。共有 371 名患者入院时间≤3 天,其中 180 名(48%)患者离床活动,140 名(38%)因生理原因不能离床活动,51 名(14%)因非生理原因不能离床活动。在 809 名无离床活动非生理障碍的患者中,367 名(45%)的不良事件风险评分为低风险,120 名(15%)为潜在风险,其中 309 名(84%)和 78 名(65%)离床活动。活动患者的 Richmond 躁动镇静量表评分为-1 至+1,血管活性药物剂量较低,需要的吸入氧浓度较低。
尽管只有 40%的患者离床活动,但 89%的“低风险”患者离床活动。活动组与非活动组的生理参数有显著重叠,这表明全面的生理评估对于决策至关重要,而不仅仅是依赖于任意的时间点。
NCT05281705 于 2022 年 3 月 16 日注册。回顾性注册。