P Nydahl1, A Diers2, U Günther2, B Haastert3, S Hesse4, C Kerschensteiner5, S Klarmann6, S Köpke7. 1. Pflegeforschung, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Brunswiker Str. 10, 24105, Kiel, Deutschland. peter.nydahl@uksh.de. 2. Universitätsklinik für Anästhesiologie/Intensivmedizin/Notfallmedizin/Schmerztherapie, Klinikum Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland. 3. mediStatistica, Neuenrade, Deutschland. 4. Anästhesie und Intensivmedizin, Städtisches Krankenhaus Kiel, Kiel, Deutschland. 5. Klinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Klinikum Neumarkt, Neumarkt i.d.OPf., Deutschland. 6. Physiotherapie und Physikalische Therapie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Deutschland. 7. Institut für Sozialmedizin und Epidemiologie, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite convincing evidence for early mobilization of patients on intensive care units (ICU), implementation in practice is limited. Protocols for early mobilization, including in- and exclusion criteria, assessments, safety criteria, and step schemes may increase the rate of implementation and mobilization. HYPOTHESIS: Patients (population) on ICUs with a protocol for early mobilization (intervention), compared to patients on ICUs without protocol (control), will be more frequently mobilized (outcome). METHODS: A multicenter, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot study is presented. Five ICUs will receive an adapted, interprofessional protocol for early mobilization in randomized order. Before and after implementation, mobilization of ICU patients will be evaluated by randomized monthly one-day point prevalence surveys. Primary outcome is the percentage of patients mobilized out of bed, operationalized as a score of ≥3 on the ICU Mobility Scale. Secondary outcome parameters will be presence and/or length of mechanical ventilation, delirium, stay on ICU and in hospital, barriers to early mobilization, adverse events, and process parameters as identified barriers, used strategies, and adaptions to local conditions. EXPECTED RESULTS: Exploratory evaluation of study feasibility and estimation of effect sizes as the basis for a future explanatory study.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite convincing evidence for early mobilization of patients on intensive care units (ICU), implementation in practice is limited. Protocols for early mobilization, including in- and exclusion criteria, assessments, safety criteria, and step schemes may increase the rate of implementation and mobilization. HYPOTHESIS: Patients (population) on ICUs with a protocol for early mobilization (intervention), compared to patients on ICUs without protocol (control), will be more frequently mobilized (outcome). METHODS: A multicenter, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot study is presented. Five ICUs will receive an adapted, interprofessional protocol for early mobilization in randomized order. Before and after implementation, mobilization of ICU patients will be evaluated by randomized monthly one-day point prevalence surveys. Primary outcome is the percentage of patients mobilized out of bed, operationalized as a score of ≥3 on the ICU Mobility Scale. Secondary outcome parameters will be presence and/or length of mechanical ventilation, delirium, stay on ICU and in hospital, barriers to early mobilization, adverse events, and process parameters as identified barriers, used strategies, and adaptions to local conditions. EXPECTED RESULTS: Exploratory evaluation of study feasibility and estimation of effect sizes as the basis for a future explanatory study.
Authors: Polly Bailey; George E Thomsen; Vicki J Spuhler; Robert Blair; James Jewkes; Louise Bezdjian; Kristy Veale; Larissa Rodriquez; Ramona O Hopkins Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: L Cabré; J Mancebo; J F Solsona; P Saura; I Gich; L Blanch; G Carrasco; M C Martín Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-04-26 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Margaret S Herridge; Leslie M Chu; Andrea Matte; George Tomlinson; Linda Chan; Claire Thomas; Jan O Friedrich; Sangeeta Mehta; Francois Lamontagne; Melanie Levasseur; Niall D Ferguson; Neill K J Adhikari; Jill C Rudkowski; Hilary Meggison; Yoanna Skrobik; John Flannery; Mark Bayley; Jane Batt; Claudia Dos Santos; Susan E Abbey; Adrienne Tan; Vincent Lo; Sunita Mathur; Matteo Parotto; Denise Morris; Linda Flockhart; Eddy Fan; Christie M Lee; M Elizabeth Wilcox; Najib Ayas; Karen Choong; Robert Fowler; Damon C Scales; Tasnim Sinuff; Brian H Cuthbertson; Louise Rose; Priscila Robles; Stacey Burns; Marcelo Cypel; Lianne Singer; Cecelia Chaparro; Chung-Wai Chow; Shaf Keshavjee; Laurent Brochard; Paul Hebert; Arthur S Slutsky; John C Marshall; Deborah Cook; Jill I Cameron Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Zudin A Puthucheary; Rahul Phadke; Jaikitry Rawal; Mark J W McPhail; Paul S Sidhu; Anthea Rowlerson; John Moxham; Stephen Harridge; Nicholas Hart; Hugh E Montgomery Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman; Andreas Laupacis; Peter C Gøtzsche; Karmela Krleža-Jerić; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Howard Mann; Kay Dickersin; Jesse A Berlin; Caroline J Doré; Wendy R Parulekar; William S M Summerskill; Trish Groves; Kenneth F Schulz; Harold C Sox; Frank W Rockhold; Drummond Rennie; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Darryl Abrams; Jeffrey Javidfar; Erica Farrand; Linda B Mongero; Cara L Agerstrand; Patrick Ryan; David Zemmel; Keri Galuskin; Theresa M Morrone; Paul Boerem; Matthew Bacchetta; Daniel Brodie Journal: Crit Care Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Th Bein; M Bischoff; U Brückner; K Gebhardt; D Henzler; C Hermes; K Lewandowski; M Max; M Nothacker; Th Staudinger; M Tryba; S Weber-Carstens; H Wrigge Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 1.041