Andy J Ma1, Nishi Rawat, Austin Reiter, Christine Shrock, Andong Zhan, Alex Stone, Anahita Rabiee, Stephanie Griffin, Dale M Needham, Suchi Saria. 1. 1Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.2Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.3Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.4Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.5Outcomes after Critical Illness and Surgery Group, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.6Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.7John Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD.8Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.9Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a noninvasive mobility sensor to automatically and continuously detect and measure patient mobility in the ICU. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Surgical ICU at an academic hospital. PATIENTS: Three hundred sixty-two hours of sensor color and depth image data were recorded and curated into 109 segments, each containing 1,000 images, from eight patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three Microsoft Kinect sensors (Microsoft, Beijing, China) were deployed in one ICU room to collect continuous patient mobility data. We developed software that automatically analyzes the sensor data to measure mobility and assign the highest level within a time period. To characterize the highest mobility level, a validated 11-point mobility scale was collapsed into four categories: nothing in bed, in-bed activity, out-of-bed activity, and walking. Of the 109 sensor segments, the noninvasive mobility sensor was developed using 26 of these from three ICU patients and validated on 83 remaining segments from five different patients. Three physicians annotated each segment for the highest mobility level. The weighted Kappa (κ) statistic for agreement between automated noninvasive mobility sensor output versus manual physician annotation was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.72-1.00). Disagreement primarily occurred in the "nothing in bed" versus "in-bed activity" categories because "the sensor assessed movement continuously," which was significantly more sensitive to motion than physician annotations using a discrete manual scale. CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive mobility sensor is a novel and feasible method for automating evaluation of ICU patient mobility.
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a noninvasive mobility sensor to automatically and continuously detect and measure patient mobility in the ICU. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Surgical ICU at an academic hospital. PATIENTS: Three hundred sixty-two hours of sensor color and depth image data were recorded and curated into 109 segments, each containing 1,000 images, from eight patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three Microsoft Kinect sensors (Microsoft, Beijing, China) were deployed in one ICU room to collect continuous patient mobility data. We developed software that automatically analyzes the sensor data to measure mobility and assign the highest level within a time period. To characterize the highest mobility level, a validated 11-point mobility scale was collapsed into four categories: nothing in bed, in-bed activity, out-of-bed activity, and walking. Of the 109 sensor segments, the noninvasive mobility sensor was developed using 26 of these from three ICU patients and validated on 83 remaining segments from five different patients. Three physicians annotated each segment for the highest mobility level. The weighted Kappa (κ) statistic for agreement between automated noninvasive mobility sensor output versus manual physician annotation was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.72-1.00). Disagreement primarily occurred in the "nothing in bed" versus "in-bed activity" categories because "the sensor assessed movement continuously," which was significantly more sensitive to motion than physician annotations using a discrete manual scale. CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive mobility sensor is a novel and feasible method for automating evaluation of ICU patient mobility.
Authors: Robert K Lord; Christopher R Mayhew; Radha Korupolu; Earl C Mantheiy; Michael A Friedman; Jeffrey B Palmer; Dale M Needham Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Peter Nydahl; A Parker Ruhl; Gabriele Bartoszek; Rolf Dubb; Silke Filipovic; Hans-Jürgen Flohr; Arnold Kaltwasser; Hendrik Mende; Oliver Rothaug; Danny Schuchhardt; Norbert Schwabbauer; Dale M Needham Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: William D Schweickert; Mark C Pohlman; Anne S Pohlman; Celerina Nigos; Amy J Pawlik; Cheryl L Esbrook; Linda Spears; Megan Miller; Mietka Franczyk; Deanna Deprizio; Gregory A Schmidt; Amy Bowman; Rhonda Barr; Kathryn E McCallister; Jesse B Hall; John P Kress Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peter E Morris; Amanda Goad; Clifton Thompson; Karen Taylor; Bethany Harry; Leah Passmore; Amelia Ross; Laura Anderson; Shirley Baker; Mary Sanchez; Lauretta Penley; April Howard; Luz Dixon; Susan Leach; Ronald Small; R Duncan Hite; Edward Haponik Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Sarina A Fazio; Amy L Doroy; Nicholas R Anderson; Jason Y Adams; Heather M Young Journal: Intensive Crit Care Nurs Date: 2020-11-14 Impact factor: 3.072
Authors: Sarina Fazio; Amy Doroy; Natalie Da Marto; Sandra Taylor; Nicholas Anderson; Heather M Young; Jason Y Adams Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2020-04-29
Authors: Andre Esteva; Katherine Chou; Serena Yeung; Nikhil Naik; Ali Madani; Ali Mottaghi; Yun Liu; Eric Topol; Jeff Dean; Richard Socher Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2021-01-08