Warmbein A, Hübner L, Rathgeber I, Mehler-Klamt AC, Huber J, Schroeder I, Scharf C, Gutmann M, Biebl J, Manz K, Kraft E, Eberl I, Zoller M, Fischer U. Robot-assisted early mobilization for intensive care unit patients: Feasibility and first-time clinical use.
Int J Nurs Stud 2024;
152:104702. [PMID:
38350342 DOI:
10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104702]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2023] [Revised: 01/08/2024] [Accepted: 01/22/2024] [Indexed: 02/15/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Early mobilization is only carried out to a limited extent in the intensive care unit. To address this issue, the robotic assistance system VEMOTION® was developed to facilitate (early) mobilization measures more easily. This paper describes the first integration of robotic assistance systems in acute clinical intensive care units.
OBJECTIVE
Feasibility test of robotic assistance in early mobilization of intensive care patients in routine clinical practice.
SETTING
Two intensive care units guided by anesthesiology at a German university hospital.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients who underwent elective surgery with postoperative treatment in the intensive care unit and had an estimated ventilation time over 48 h.
METHODS
Participants underwent robot-assisted mobilization, scheduled for twenty-minute sessions twice a day, ten times or one week, conducted by nursing staff under actual operational conditions on the units. No randomization or blinding took place. We assessed data regarding feasible cutoff points (in brackets): the possibility of enrollment (x ≥ 50 %), duration (pre- and post-setup (x ≤ 25 min), therapy duration (x = 20 min), and intervention-related parameters (number of mobilizing professionals (x ≤ 2), intensity of training, events that led to adverse events, errors or discontinuation). Mobilizing professionals rated each mobilization regarding their physical stress (x ≤ 3) and feasibility (x ≥ 4) on a 7 Point Likert Scale. An estimated sample size of at least twenty patients was calculated. We analyzed the data descriptively.
RESULTS
Within 6 months, we screened thirty-two patients for enrollment. 23 patients were included in the study and 16 underwent mobilization using robotic assistance, 7 dropped out (enrollment eligibility = 69 %). On average, 1.9 nurses were involved per therapy unit. Participants received 5.6 robot-assisted mobilizations in mean. Pre- and post-setup had a mean duration of 18 min, therapy a mean of 21 min. The robot-assisted mobilization was started after a median of 18 h after admission to the intensive care unit. We documented two adverse events (pain), twelve errors in handling, and seven unexpected events that led to interruptions or discontinuation. No serious adverse events occurred. The mobilizing nurses rated their physical stress as low (mean 2.0 ± 1.3) and the intervention as feasible (mean 5.3 ± 1.6).
CONCLUSIONS
Robot-assisted mobilization was feasible, but specific safety measures should be implemented to prevent errors. Robotic-assisted mobilization requires process adjustments and consideration of unit staffing levels, as the intervention does not save staff resources or time.
REGISTRATION
clinicaltrials.org TRN: NCT05071248; Date: 2021/10/08; URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05071248.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Robot-assisted early mobilization in intensive care patients is feasible and no adverse event occurred.
Collapse