SORA

Advancing, promoting and sharing knowledge of health through excellence in teaching, clinical practice and research into the prevention and treatment of illness

Early mobilisation and rehabilitation in the PICU: a UK survey.

Thompson, JY; Menzies, JC; Manning, JC; McAnuff, J; Brush, EC; Ryde, F; Rapley, T; Pathan, N; Brett, S; Moore, DJ; et al. Thompson, JY; Menzies, JC; Manning, JC; McAnuff, J; Brush, EC; Ryde, F; Rapley, T; Pathan, N; Brett, S; Moore, DJ; Geary, M; Colville, GA; Morris, KP; Parslow, RC; Feltbower, RG; Lockley, S; Kirkham, FJ; Forsyth, RJ; Scholefield, BR; PERMIT Collaborators, Paediatric Critical Care Society Study-Gro (2022) Early mobilisation and rehabilitation in the PICU: a UK survey. BMJ Paediatr Open, 6 (1). e001300. ISSN 2399-9772 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001300
SGUL Authors: Colville, Gillian

[img]
Preview
PDF Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To understand the context and professional perspectives of delivering early rehabilitation and mobilisation (ERM) within UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs). DESIGN: A web-based survey administered from May 2019 to August 2019. SETTING: UK PICUs. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 124 staff from 26 PICUs participated, including 22 (18%) doctors, 34 (27%) nurses, 28 (23%) physiotherapists, 19 (15%) occupational therapists and 21 (17%) were other professionals. RESULTS: Key components of participants' definitions of ERM included tailored, multidisciplinary rehabilitation packages focused on promoting recovery. Multidisciplinary involvement in initiating ERM was commonly reported. Over half of respondents favoured delivering ERM after achieving physiological stability (n=69, 56%). All age groups were considered for ERM by relevant health professionals. However, responses differed concerning the timing of initiation. Interventions considered for ERM were more likely to be delivered to patients when PICU length of stay exceeded 28 days and among patients with acquired brain injury or severe developmental delay. The most commonly identified barriers were physiological instability (81%), limited staffing (79%), sedation requirement (73%), insufficient resources and equipment (69%), lack of recognition of patient readiness (67%), patient suitability (63%), inadequate training (61%) and inadequate funding (60%). Respondents ranked reduction in PICU length of stay (74%) and improvement in psychological outcomes (73%) as the most important benefits of ERM. CONCLUSION: ERM is gaining familiarity and endorsement in UK PICUs, but significant barriers to implementation due to limited resources and variation in content and delivery of ERM persist. A standardised protocol that sets out defined ERM interventions, along with implementation support to tackle modifiable barriers, is required to ensure the delivery of high-quality ERM.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Keywords: epidemiology, rehabilitation, Child, Early Ambulation, Health Personnel, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Pediatric, Surveys and Questionnaires, United Kingdom, PERMIT Collaborators, Paediatric Critical Care Society Study-Group (PCCS-SG), Humans, Early Ambulation, Child, Health Personnel, Intensive Care Units, Pediatric, Surveys and Questionnaires, United Kingdom, rehabilitation, epidemiology
SGUL Research Institute / Research Centre: Academic Structure > Population Health Research Institute (INPH)
Journal or Publication Title: BMJ Paediatr Open
ISSN: 2399-9772
Language: eng
Dates:
DateEvent
9 June 2022Published
25 February 2022Accepted
Publisher License: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0
Projects:
Project IDFunderFunder ID
17/21National Institute for Health Researchhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272
PubMed ID: 36053640
Web of Science ID: WOS:000809951800002
Go to PubMed abstract
URI: https://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/115403
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001300

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item