Dataset Information

Assessment of mobilization capacity in 10 different ICU scenarios by different professions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mobilization of intensive care patients is a multi-professional task. Aim of this study was to explore how different professions working at Intensive Care Units (ICU) estimate the mobility capacity using the ICU Mobility Score in 10 different scenarios.

Methods

Ten fictitious patient-scenarios and guideline-related knowledge were assessed using an online survey. Critical care team members in German-speaking countries were invited to participate. All datasets including professional data and at least one scenario were analyzed. Kruskal Wallis test was used for the individual scenarios, while a linear mixed-model was used over all responses.

Results

In total, 515 of 788 (65%) participants could be evaluated. Physicians (p = 0.001) and nurses (p = 0.002) selected a lower ICU Mobility Score (-0.7 95% CI -1.1 to -0.3 and -0.4 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2, respectively) than physical therapists, while other specialists did not (p = 0.81). Participants who classified themselves as experts or could define early mobilization in accordance to the "S2e guideline: positioning and early mobilisation in prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary disorders" correctly selected higher mobilization levels (0.2 95% CI 0.0 to 0.4, p = 0.049 and 0.3 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5, p = 0.002, respectively).

Conclusion

Different professions scored the mobilization capacity of patients differently, with nurses and physicians estimating significantly lower capacity than physical therapists. The exact knowledge of guidelines and recommendations, such as the definition of early mobilization, independently lead to a higher score. Interprofessional education, interprofessional rounds and mobilization activities could further enhance knowledge and practice of mobilization in the critical care team.

SUBMITTER: Hermes C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7561080 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of mobilization capacity in 10 different ICU scenarios by different professions.

Hermes Carsten C Nydahl Peter P Blobner Manfred M Dubb Rolf R Filipovic Silke S Kaltwasser Arnold A Ulm Bernhard B Schaller Stefan J SJ

PloS one 20201015 10

<h4>Background</h4>Mobilization of intensive care patients is a multi-professional task. Aim of this study was to explore how different professions working at Intensive Care Units (ICU) estimate the mobility capacity using the ICU Mobility Score in 10 different scenarios.<h4>Methods</h4>Ten fictitious patient-scenarios and guideline-related knowledge were assessed using an online survey. Critical care team members in German-speaking countries were invited to participate. All datasets including p ...[more]

PMID: 33057435

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeEarly mobilization in the intensive care unit (ICU) can improve patient outcomes but has perceived barriers to implementation. As part of an ongoing structured quality improvement project to increase mobilization of medical ICU patients by nurses and clinical technicians, we adapted the existing, validated Patient Mobilization Attitudes & Beliefs Survey (PMABS) for the ICU setting and evaluated its performance characteristics and results.Materials and methodsThe 26-item PMABS adapted for the ICU (PMABS-ICU) was administered as an online survey to 163 nurses, clinical technicians, respiratory therapists, attending and fellow physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants in one medical ICU. We evaluated the overall and subscale (knowledge, attitude, and behavior) scores and compared these scores by respondent characteristics (clinical role and years of work experience).ResultsThe survey response rate was 96% (155/163). The survey demonstrated acceptable discriminant validity and acceptable internal consistency for the overall scale (Cronbach α: 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.85), with weaker internal consistency for all subscales (Cronbach α: 0.62-0.69). Across all respondent groups, the overall barrier score (range: 1-100) was relatively low, with attending physicians perceiving the lowest barriers (median [interquartile range]: 30 [28-34]) and nurses perceiving the highest (37 [31-40]). Within the first 10 years of work experience, greater experience was associated with a lower overall barrier score (-0.8 for each additional year; P = 0.02).ConclusionsIn our medical ICU, across 6 different clinical roles, there were relatively low perceived barriers to patient mobility, with greater work experience over the first 10 years being associated with lower perceived barriers. As part of a structured quality improvement project, the PMABS-ICU may be valuable in assisting to identify specific perceived barriers for consideration in designing mobility interventions for the ICU setting.

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of systematic early mobilization in improving muscle strength and physical function in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients.MethodsWe conducted a two-stage systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library until January 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effects of early mobilization initiated within 7 days after ICU admission compared with late mobilization, standard early mobilization or no mobilization. Priority outcomes were Medical Research Council Sum Score (MRC-SS), incidence of ICU-acquired weakness (ICUAW), 6-min walk test (6MWT), proportion of patients reaching independence, time needed until walking, SF-36 Physical Function Domain Score (PFS) and SF-36 Physical Health Component Score (PCS). Meta-analysis was conducted where sufficient comparable evidence was available. We evaluated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.ResultsWe identified 12 eligible RCTs contributing data from 1304 participants. Two RCTs were categorized as comparing systematic early with late mobilization, nine with standard early mobilization and one with no mobilization. We found evidence for a benefit of systematic early mobilization compared to late mobilization for SF-36 PFS (MD 12.3; 95% CI 3.9-20.8) and PCS (MD 3.4; 95% CI 0.01-6.8), as well as on the proportion of patients reaching independence and the time needed to walking, but not for incidence of ICUAW (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.38-1.03) or MRC-SS. For systematic early compared to standard early mobilization, we found no statistically significant benefit on MRC-SS (MD 5.8; 95% CI - 1.4 to 13.0), incidence of ICUAW (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.63-1.27), SF-36 PFS (MD 8.1; 95% CI - 15.3 to 31.4) or PCS (MD - 2.4; 95% CI - 6.1 to 1.3) or other priority outcomes except for change in 6MWT from baseline. Generally, effects appeared stronger for systematic early compared to late mobilization than to standard early mobilization. We judged the certainty of evidence for all outcomes as very low to low.ConclusionThe evidence regarding a benefit of systematic early mobilization remained inconclusive. However, our findings indicate that the larger the difference in the timing between the intervention and the comparator, the more likely an RCT is to find a benefit for early mobilization.Study registrationPROSPERO (CRD42019122555).

Project description:The symptoms of addictive eating are often debated, with some overlap in symptoms with substance addictions or other disorders such as binge eating disorder. This study explored the levels of agreement with symptoms of addictive eating among different health professions, the conditions they provide advice for, and the population group/s they work with. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted in February-April 2020 including 142 health professionals (87% female, 65% residing in Australia, 28% each working in private practice/hospital settings). Of these, 47% were dietitians, 20% psychologists/psychotherapists/counsellors, 16% other health practitioners (e.g., social workers), 13% health researchers, and 5% medical professionals. Agreement with 11 statements relating to addictive eating symptoms was assessed on a scale of 1/strongly disagree to 5/strongly agree (e.g., certain foods produce physiological effects in the brain rewards system). Differences in agreement by health profession were assessed by one-way analysis of variance. There were significant differences in agreement with individual statements between health professions. Psychologists, psychotherapists, and counsellors reported lower agreement to statements relating to physiological effects in the reward system, withdrawal symptoms, and over-eating to alleviate stress/anxiety, than other professions (p < 0.05). Those providing advice for disordered eating only reported lower agreement across statements compared with those providing advice for overweight/obesity or both (p < 0.001). There were minimal differences based on the population group/s that health professionals work with. There is some agreement among health professionals regarding addictive eating symptoms, however, this differs by profession and the conditions they treat. This study provides a novel perspective on health professionals' views on addictive eating symptoms, and there is a need for more research to explore the concepts further.

Project description:Importance:Researchers have published surveys on health professionals' perceptions of the possible association between climate change and health (climate-health) and assessed climate-health or planetary health curricula in medical schools. However, curricula on climate-health are still lacking and gaps in knowledge persist. Objective:To understand the state of climate-health curricula among health professions institutions internationally. Design, Setting, and Participants:A survey of 160 institutional members of the Global Consortium on Climate and Health Education, which includes international health professions schools and programs, was conducted from August 3, 2017, to March 1, 2018. The survey, hosted by Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, used an online survey tool for data collection. Main Outcomes and Measures:The survey assessed climate-health curricular offerings across health professions institutions internationally, including existing climate-health educational offerings, method of teaching climate-health education, whether institutions are considering adding climate-health education, whether institutions received a positive response to adding climate-health curricula and/or encountered challenges in adding curricula, and opportunities to advance climate-health education. Results:Overall response rate to the survey was 53%, with 84 of 160 institutional responses collected; 59 of the responses (70%) were from schools/programs of public health, health sciences, or health professions; 15 (18%) were from medicine; 9 (11%) were from nursing; and 1 (1%) was from another type of health profession institution. Among respondents, 53 (63%) institutions offer climate-health education, most commonly as part of a required core course (41 [76%]). Sixty-one of 82 respondents (74%) reported that climate-health offerings are under discussion to add, 42 of 59 respondents (71%) encountered some challenges trying to institute the curriculum, and most respondents have received a positive response to adding content, mainly from students (39 of 58 [67%]), faculty (35 of 58 [60%]), and administration (23 of 58 [40%]). Conclusions and Relevance:Current climate-health educational offerings appear to vary considerably among health professions institutions. Students, faculty, and administration are important groups to engage when instituting curricula, and awareness, support, and resources may be able to assist in this effort.

Project description:Background and aimsOver the last decade, regulators have taken significant steps towards tackling perceptions that regulatory systems are burdensome. There has been much international research activity in the regulation of health and care professionals. This article reports a review of studies on health professions regulation between January 2011 and March 2020. Its chief object was to provide robust and up-to-date evidence to assist regulators in policy development and implementation. The main objectives of this study were to: 1. Identify and retrieve research in the field of health and care professions regulation in English since 2011; 2. Evaluate the published research, exploring its utility to regulators and practitioners, and drawing out any key messages; 3. Draw conclusions concerning the scope and limitations of the research literature and identify areas for further research.MethodsWe undertook a rapid evidence assessment (REA) of the international literature on health and care professions regulation, including reviewing ten UK regulators' websites to identify issues of concern and strategic priorities. We retrieved 3833 references, using a four-stage screening process to select the 81 most relevant.ResultsResults are reported within six key themes: harm prevention and patient safety; fitness to practise; quality assurance of education and training; registration including maintenance of registers; guidelines and standards and relations with regulatory bodies.ConclusionsRegulation of professionals in health and care is comparatively undeveloped as a field of academic study. Consequently, the published evidence is diffuse and small-scale. Most work presents relatively weak data of low relevance to regulators, mainly reporting or describing the current position. Few studies are able to show the impact of regulation or demonstrate a causal link between regulation and its effects. To inform their research and policy agendas health and social care regulators need to commission, interpret and apply the scholarly literature more effectively; academics need to engage with regulators to ensure that their research provides high-quality evidence with practical relevance to the regulators' agendas. Further study is needed to explore how effective academic collaborations between regulators and researchers may be created and sustained.

Dataset Information

Assessment of mobilization capacity in 10 different ICU scenarios by different professions.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Assessment of mobilization capacity in 10 different ICU scenarios by different professions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets