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

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

The Delphi Delirium Management Algorithms. A practical tool for clinicians, the result of a modified Delphi expert consensus approach

Delirium is common in hospitalised patients, and there is currently no specific treatment. Identifying and treating underlying somatic causes of delirium is the first priority once delirium is diagnosed. Several international guidelines provide clinicians with an evidence-based approach to screening, diagnosis and symptomatic treatment. However, current guidelines do not offer a structured approach to identification of underlying causes. A panel of 37 internationally recognised delirium experts from diverse medical backgrounds worked together in a modified Delphi approach via an online platform. Consensus was reached after five voting rounds. The final product of this project is a set of three delirium management algorithms (the Delirium Delphi Algorithms), one for ward patients, one for patients after cardiac surgery and one for patients in the intensive care unit.</p

Dysphagia in Intensive Care Evaluation (DICE): An International Cross-Sectional Survey.

Dysphagia occurs commonly in the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite the clinical relevance, there is little worldwide research on prevention, assessment, evaluation, and/or treatment of dysphagia for ICU patients. We aimed to gain insight into this international knowledge gap. We conducted a multi-center, international online cross-sectional survey of adult ICUs. Local survey distribution champions were recruited through professional and personal networks. The survey was administered from November 2017 to June 2019 with three emails and a final telephone reminder. Responses were received from 746 ICUs (26 countries). In patients intubated > 48 h, 17% expected a > 50% chance that dysphagia would develop. This proportion increased to 43% in patients intubated > 7 days, and to 52% in tracheotomized patients. Speech-language pathologist (SLP) consultation was available in 66% of ICUs, only 4% reported a dedicated SLP. Although 66% considered a routine post-extubation dysphagia protocol important, most (67%) did not have a protocol. Few ICUs routinely assessed for dysphagia after 48 h of intubation (30%) or tracheostomy (41%). A large proportion (46%) used water swallow screening tests to determine aspiration, few (8%) used instrumental assessments (i.e., flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing). Swallowing exercises were used for dysphagia management by 30% of ICUs. There seems to be limited awareness among ICU practitioners that patients are at risk of dysphagia, particularly as ventilation persists, protocols, routine assessment, and instrumental assessments are generally not used. We recommend the development of a research agenda to increase the quality of evidence and ameliorate the implementation of evidence-based dysphagia protocols by dedicated SLPs

Factors influencing physical activity and rehabilitation in survivors of critical illness: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

PURPOSE: To identify, evaluate and synthesise studies examining the barriers and enablers for survivors of critical illness to participate in physical activity in the ICU and post-ICU settings from the perspective of patients, caregivers and healthcare providers. METHODS: Systematic review of articles using five electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus. Quantitative and qualitative studies that were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal and assessed barriers or enablers for survivors of critical illness to perform physical activity were included. Prospero ID: CRD42016035454. RESULTS: Eighty-nine papers were included. Five major themes and 28 sub-themes were identified, encompassing: (1) patient physical and psychological capability to perform physical activity, including delirium, sedation, illness severity, comorbidities, weakness, anxiety, confidence and motivation; (2) safety influences, including physiological stability and concern for lines, e.g. risk of dislodgement; (3) culture and team influences, including leadership, interprofessional communication, administrative buy-in, clinician expertise and knowledge; (4) motivation and beliefs regarding the benefits/risks; and (5) environmental influences, including funding, access to rehabilitation programs, staffing and equipment. CONCLUSIONS: The main barriers identified were patient physical and psychological capability to perform physical activity, safety concerns, lack of leadership and ICU culture of mobility, lack of interprofessional communication, expertise and knowledge, and lack of staffing/equipment and funding to provide rehabilitation programs. Barriers and enablers are multidimensional and span diverse factors. The majority of these barriers are modifiable and can be targeted in future clinical practice

Are There Price Bubbles in the Swedish Equity Market?

Not available.Price bubbles; Stock market crashes; Regime shifts