tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Intensive Crit Care Nurs
. 2022 Dec 8;103370.
doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2022.103370. Online ahead of print.
Comparing rehabilitation outcomes for patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation during the first two waves of the pandemic: A service evaluation
Jonathan Weblin[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Adam Harriman[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Katrina Butler[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Catherine Snelson[SUP] 2 [/SUP], David McWilliams[SUP] 3 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Objectives: To compare rehabilitation outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 and mechanically ventilated during wave 1 and 2, receiving two different models of physiotherapy delivery.
Methods: Adults admitted to the intensive care unit between October-March 2021 (wave 2) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and mechanically ventilated for >24 hours were included. During wave 2, rehabilitation was provided by physiotherapists over five days, with only emergency respiratory physiotherapy delivered at weekends. Rehabilitation status was measured daily using the Manchester Mobility Score to identify time taken to first mobilise and highest level of mobility achieved at ICU discharge. Outcomes were compared to data previously published from the same ICU during 'wave 1' (March-April 2020) when a seven-day rehabilitation physiotherapy service was provided.
Results: A total of n = 291 patients were included in analysis; 110 from wave 1, and 181 from wave 2. Patient characteristics and medical management were similar between waves. Mean ± SD time to first mobilise was slower in wave 2 (15 ± 11 days vs 14 ± 7 days), with overall mobility scores lower at both ICU (MMS 5 (Step transferring) vs MMS 4 (standing practice) (4), p < 0.05) and hospital (MMS 7 (Mobile > 30 m MMS) vs MMS 6 (Mobile < 30 m MMS), p < 0.0001) discharge. Significantly more patients in wave 2 required ongoing rehabilitation either at home or as an inpatient compared to wave 1 (81 % vs 49 %, p = 0.003).
Conclusion: The change in physiotherapy staff provision from a seven-day rehabilitation service during wave 1 to a five day rehabilitation service with emergency respiratory physio only at weekends in wave 2 was associated with delayed time to first mobilise, lower levels of mobility at both intensive care unit and hospital discharge and higher requirement for ongoing rehabilitation at the point of hospital discharge.
Keywords: Coronavirus; ICU; Mobilisation; Physiotherapy; Rehabilitation; Workforce.
. 2022 Dec 8;103370.
doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2022.103370. Online ahead of print.
Comparing rehabilitation outcomes for patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation during the first two waves of the pandemic: A service evaluation
Jonathan Weblin[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Adam Harriman[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Katrina Butler[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Catherine Snelson[SUP] 2 [/SUP], David McWilliams[SUP] 3 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 36528463
- DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2022.103370
Abstract
Objectives: To compare rehabilitation outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 and mechanically ventilated during wave 1 and 2, receiving two different models of physiotherapy delivery.
Methods: Adults admitted to the intensive care unit between October-March 2021 (wave 2) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and mechanically ventilated for >24 hours were included. During wave 2, rehabilitation was provided by physiotherapists over five days, with only emergency respiratory physiotherapy delivered at weekends. Rehabilitation status was measured daily using the Manchester Mobility Score to identify time taken to first mobilise and highest level of mobility achieved at ICU discharge. Outcomes were compared to data previously published from the same ICU during 'wave 1' (March-April 2020) when a seven-day rehabilitation physiotherapy service was provided.
Results: A total of n = 291 patients were included in analysis; 110 from wave 1, and 181 from wave 2. Patient characteristics and medical management were similar between waves. Mean ± SD time to first mobilise was slower in wave 2 (15 ± 11 days vs 14 ± 7 days), with overall mobility scores lower at both ICU (MMS 5 (Step transferring) vs MMS 4 (standing practice) (4), p < 0.05) and hospital (MMS 7 (Mobile > 30 m MMS) vs MMS 6 (Mobile < 30 m MMS), p < 0.0001) discharge. Significantly more patients in wave 2 required ongoing rehabilitation either at home or as an inpatient compared to wave 1 (81 % vs 49 %, p = 0.003).
Conclusion: The change in physiotherapy staff provision from a seven-day rehabilitation service during wave 1 to a five day rehabilitation service with emergency respiratory physio only at weekends in wave 2 was associated with delayed time to first mobilise, lower levels of mobility at both intensive care unit and hospital discharge and higher requirement for ongoing rehabilitation at the point of hospital discharge.
Keywords: Coronavirus; ICU; Mobilisation; Physiotherapy; Rehabilitation; Workforce.