Falls and patient mobility in critical care: keeping patients and staff safe

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceived Barriers of Healthcare Providers toward Early Mobilization of Adult Critically Ill Patients in Intensive Care Unit

Background

Early mobilization (EM) of critically ill adult patients in intensive care units (ICUs) is a newer concept. It is known to improve overall outcomes, but little is known regarding the attitude and knowledge of healthcare providers (HCPs) and multidisciplinary barriers to its use in the Indian scenario.

Aims and objectives

To study the knowledge and attitude of HCPs in ICU about the EM of adult patients who are critically ill and identify perceived barriers to the application of EM.

Materials and methods

In a cross-sectional survey conducted in a tertiary care academic institute, the HCPs, namely, physicians, anesthetists, surgeons, nursing staff, and physiotherapists working in ICU were interviewed using a self-structured questionnaire. The data were presented as descriptive statistics.

Results

There was 80% response rate. The benefits of EM as shortened length of mechanical ventilation (MV) were acknowledged by 78% respondents and 54% believed that it maintains muscle strength. It was considered crucial by 44% respondents, who opined that it should be started as the patient's cardiorespiratory status stabilizes. The favorable attitudes observed were recognition of benefits for patients under MV exceeded the risks and readiness by physicians to reduce sedation levels and change the parameters of MV. The main barriers identified were the absence of written guidelines or protocols for EM, limited staff to mobilize patients, inadequate training of HCP to facilitate EM, excessive sedation, and medical instability.

Conclusion

There exists an awareness of the benefits of EM and favorable attitudes to its application. However, the actual performance of EM was perceived as a challenge due to barriers identified in the study.

How to cite this article

Akhtar PM, Deshmukh PK. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceived Barriers of Healthcare Providers toward Early Mobilization of Adult Critically Ill Patients in Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(5):512–518.

Clinical attitudes and perceived barriers to early mobilization of critically ill patients in adult intensive care units

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the knowledge of multi-professional staff members about the early mobilization of critically ill adult patients and identify attitudes and perceived barriers to its application.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted during the second semester of 2016 with physicians, nursing professionals and physical therapists from six intensive care units at two teaching hospitals. Questions were answered on a 5-point Likert scale and analyzed as proportions of professionals who agreed or disagreed with statements. The chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to investigate differences in the responses according to educational/training level, previous experience with early mobilization and years of experience in intensive care units.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was answered by 98 out of 514 professionals (response rate: 19%). The acknowledged benefits of early mobilization were maintenance of muscle strength (53%) and shortened length of mechanical ventilation (83%). Favorable attitudes toward early mobilization included recognition that its benefits for patients under mechanical ventilation exceed the risks for both patients and staff, that early mobilization should be routinely performed via nursing and physical therapy protocols, and readiness to change the parameters of mechanical ventilation and reduce sedation to facilitate the early mobilization of patients. The main barriers mentioned were the unavailability of professionals and time to mobilize patients, excessive sedation, delirium, risk of musculoskeletal self-injury and excessive stress at work.

CONCLUSION

The participants were aware of the benefits of early mobilization and manifested attitudes favorable to its application. However, the actual performance of early mobilization was perceived as a challenge, mainly due to the lack of professionals and time, excessive sedation, delirium, risk of musculoskeletal self-injury and excessive stress at work.

[Short version S2e guidelines: "Positioning therapy and early mobilization for prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary function disorders"]

The German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) commissioned a revision of the S2 guidelines on "positioning therapy for prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary function disorders" from 2008. Because of the increasing clinical and scientific relevance the guidelines were extended to include the issue of "early mobilization" and the following main topics are therefore included: use of positioning therapy and early mobilization for prophylaxis and therapy of pulmonary function disorders, undesired effects and complications of positioning therapy and early mobilization as well as practical aspects of the use of positioning therapy and early mobilization. These guidelines are the result of a systematic literature search and the subsequent critical evaluation of the evidence with scientific methods. The methodological approach for the process of development of the guidelines followed the requirements of evidence-based medicine, as defined as the standard by the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany. Recently published articles after 2005 were examined with respect to positioning therapy and the recently accepted aspect of early mobilization incorporates all literature published up to June 2014.

S2e guideline: positioning and early mobilisation in prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary disorders : Revision 2015: S2e guideline of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI)

The German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) commissioneda revision of the S2 guidelines on "positioning therapy for prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary function disorders" from 2008. Because of the increasing clinical and scientificrelevance the guidelines were extended to include the issue of "early mobilization"and the following main topics are therefore included: use of positioning therapy and earlymobilization for prophylaxis and therapy of pulmonary function disorders, undesired effects and complications of positioning therapy and early mobilization as well as practical aspects of the use of positioning therapy and early mobilization. These guidelines are the result of a systematic literature search and the subsequent critical evaluation of the evidence with scientific methods. The methodological approach for the process of development of the guidelines followed the requirements of evidence-based medicine, as defined as the standard by the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany. Recently published articles after 2005 were examined with respect to positioning therapy and the recently accepted aspect of early mobilization incorporates all literature published up to June 2014.

Relación de la asignación de personal de enfermería con indicadores de resultado de la calidad de la atención en unidades de cuidados intensivos adulto

Objetivo: determinar la relación de la asignación de personal de enfermería con indicadores de resultado de la calidad de la atención en unidades de cuidados intensivos. Materiales y métodos: se hizo un estudio descriptivo con un componente correlacional, en el que se observaron 4006 turnos y se analizaron las variables de asignación de personal (estructura) y de resultado, en términos de casos de shock o paro, infecciones asociadas a la atención en salud, número de muertes y totalidad de eventos negativos en salud. Resultados: los resultados muestran que las enfermeras desarrollan un número reducido de actividades de cuidado directo al paciente, que se concentran en la administración de medicamentos y la supervisión de transfusiones, y otras tareas administrativas, mientras que el personal auxiliar se hace cargo del cuidado directo al paciente, incluidas las actividades complejas. La razón paciente/profesional de enfermería promedio fue de 5,4 pacientes por cada enfermera disponible en la unidad, y la razón paciente/auxiliar de enfermería promedio fue de 2,4. Las correlaciones no son concluyentes. Conclusiones: se sugiere estudiar con mayor profundidad el skill mix como una medida más sensible de asignación de personal, a la vez que se plantean recomendaciones en torno a la diferenciación de actividades entre profesionales y auxiliares de enfermería, y algunas consideraciones relativas a la asignación de personal.

Medical intensive care unit clinician attitudes and perceived barriers towards early mobilization of critically ill patients: a cross-sectional survey study

Background

Early mobilization (EM) of patients on mechanical ventilation (MV) is shown to improve outcomes after critical illness. Little is known regarding clinician knowledge of EM or multi-disciplinary barriers to use of EM in the intensive care unit (ICU). The goal of this study was to assess clinician knowledge regarding EM and identify barriers to its provision.

Methods

Simultaneous cross-sectional surveys of medical ICU (MICU) nurses (RN)/physical therapists (PT) respondents and physician (MD) respondents in a single MICU at an academic hospital in Seattle, WA in 2010–2011. Responses were indicated on a 5 point Likert scale and reported as proportion of respondents agreeing or disagreeing. Chi-square testing and Fisher’s exact testing was performed to determine whether responses differed by duration of employment or prior EM experience.

Results

A total of 120 clinicians responded to the survey (91 MDs (response rate 82% (91/111)), 17 RNs (response rate 22%, (17/78)), and 12 PTs (response rate 86%, (12/14)), overall response rate 86%). Most clinicians indicated knowledge regarding benefits of EM. More attending physicians reported knowledge of EM benefits, but also that risks of EM outweigh the benefits compared to trainees (p = 0.02 and 0.01). Clinicians across disciplines reported near universal agreement to use of EM for patients on MV, while the minority reported agreement to EM for patients on vasoactive agents. The most frequently reported cross-disciplinary barriers to EM were staffing and time. Risk of self-injury and excess work stress were indicated as barriers by RN and PT respondents.

Conclusions

MICU clinicians, at our institution, reported knowledge of EM in the ICU. Staffing and clinician time were frequently identified cross-disciplinary barriers. Risk of self-injury and excess work stress were frequently reported RN and PT barriers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2253-14-84) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.