Mobilisation in the EveNing to TreAt deLirium (MENTAL): protocol for a mixed-methods feasibility randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Delirium is common in critically ill patients and is associated with longer hospital stays, increased mortality and higher healthcare costs. A number of risk factors have been identified for the development of delirium in intensive care, two of which are sleep disturbance and immobilisation. Non-pharmacological interventions for the management of intensive care unit (ICU) delirium have been advocated, including sleep protocols and early mobilisation. However, there is a little published evidence evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of evening mobilisation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Mobilisation in the EveNing to TreAt deLirium (MENTAL) is a two-centre, mixed-methods feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT). Sixty patients will be recruited from ICUs at two acute NHS trusts and randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive additional evening mobilisation, delivered between 19:00 and 21:00, or standard care. The underpinning hypothesis is that the physical exertion associated with evening mobilisation will promote better sleep, subsequently having the potential to reduce delirium incidence. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a future, multicentre RCT. The primary outcome measures, which will determine feasibility, are recruitment and retention rates, and intervention fidelity. Acceptability of the intervention will be evaluated through semi-structured interviews of participants and staff. Secondary outcome measures include collecting baseline, clinical and outcome data to inform the power calculations of a future definitive trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained through the Wales Research and Ethics Committee 6 (22/WA/0106). Participants are required to provide written informed consent. We aim to disseminate the findings through international conferences, international peer-reviewed journals and social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05401461.

Decision-making around admission to intensive care in the UK pre-COVID-19: a multicentre ethnographic study

Predicting who will benefit from admission to an intensive care unit is not straightforward and admission processes vary. Our aim was to understand how decisions to admit or not are made. We observed 55 decision-making events in six NHS hospitals. We interviewed 30 referring and 43 intensive care doctors about these events. We describe the nature and context of the decision-making and analysed how doctors make intensive care admission decisions. Such decisions are complex with intrinsic uncertainty, often urgent and made with incomplete information. While doctors aspire to make patient-centred decisions, key challenges include: being overworked with lack of time; limited support from senior staff; and a lack of adequate staffing in other parts of the hospital that may be compromising patient safety. To reduce decision complexity, heuristic rules based on experience are often used to help think through the problem; for example, the patient's functional status or clinical gestalt. The intensive care doctors actively managed relationships with referring doctors; acted as the hospital generalist for acutely ill patients; and brought calm to crisis situations. However, they frequently failed to elicit values and preferences from patients or family members. They were rarely explicit in balancing burdens and benefits of intensive care for patients, so consistency and equity cannot be judged. The use of a framework for intensive care admission decisions that reminds doctors to seek patient or family views and encourages explicit balancing of burdens and benefits could improve decision-making. However, a supportive, adequately resourced context is also needed.