Physical therapy and nutrition therapy: synergistic, antagonistic, or independent interventions?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Physical therapy and nutrition therapy have predominantly been studied separately in the critically ill, however in clinical practice are often delivered in combination. It is important to understand how these interventions interact. This review will summarize the current science - where they are potentially synergistic, antagonistic, or independent interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: Only six studies were identified within the ICU setting that combined physical therapy and nutrition therapy. The majority of these were randomized controlled trials with modest sample sizes. There was an indication of benefit in the preservation of femoral muscle mass and short-term physical quality of life - particularly with high-protein delivery and resistance exercise, in patients who were predominantly mechanically ventilated patients, with an ICU length of stay of approximately 4-7 days (varied across studies). Although these benefits did not extend to other outcomes such as reduced length of ventilation, ICU or hospital admission. No recent trials were identified that combined physical therapy and nutrition therapy in post-ICU settings and is an area that warrants investigation. SUMMARY: The combination of physical therapy and nutrition therapy might be synergistic when evaluated within the ICU setting. However, more careful work is required to understand the physiological challenges in the delivery of these interventions. Combining these interventions in post-ICU settings is currently under-investigated, but may be important to understand any potential benefits to patient longitudinal recovery.

Commencing Out-of-Bed Rehabilitation in Critical Care-What Influences Clinical Decision-Making?

OBJECTIVES: To develop a decision tree that objectively identifies the most discriminative variables in the decision to provide out-of-bed rehabilitation, measure the effect of this decision and to identify the factors that intensive care unit (ICU) practitioners think most influential in that clinical decision. DESIGN: A prospective 3-part study: (1) consensus identification of influential factors in mobilization via survey; (2) development of an early rehabilitation decision tree; (3) measurement of practitioner mobilization decision-making. Treating practitioners of patients expected to stay >96 hours were asked if they would provide out-of-bed rehabilitation and rank factors that influenced this decision from an a priori defined list developed from a literature review and expert consultation. SETTING: Four tertiary metropolitan ICUs. PARTICIPANTS: Practitioners (ICU medical, nursing, and physiotherapy staff) (N=507). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A decision tree was constructed using binary recursive partitioning to determine the factor that best classified patients suitable for out-of-bed rehabilitation. Descriptive statistics were used to describe practitioner and patient samples as well as patient adverse events associated with out-of-bed rehabilitation and the factors prioritized by ICU practitioners. RESULTS: There were 1520 practitioner decisions representing 472 individual patient decisions. Practitioners classified patients suitable for out-of-bed rehabilitation on 149 occasions and not suitable on 323 occasions. Decision tree analysis showed the presence of an endotracheal tube (ETT) and sedation state were the only discriminative variables that predicted patient suitability for rehabilitation. In contrast, medical staff and nurses reported that ventilator status was the most influential factor in their decision not to provide rehabilitation while physiotherapists ranked sedation most highly. The presence of muscle weakness did not inform the decision to provide rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: These results confirm previous observational reports that the presence of an ETT remains a major obstacle to the provision of rehabilitation for critically ill patients. Despite rehabilitation being effective for improving muscle strength, the presence of muscle weakness did not influence the decision to provide rehabilitation.

The conceptualisation of health-related quality of life in decision-making by intensive care physicians: A qualitative inquiry.

OBJECTIVES: To explore how intensive care physicians conceptualise and prioritise patient health-related quality of life in their decision-making. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/DESIGN: General qualitative inquiry using elements of Grounded Theory. Six ICU physicians participated. SETTING: A large, closed, mixed ICU at a university-affiliated hospital, Australia. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: (1) Multi-dimensionality of HRQoL-HRQoL was described as difficult to understand; the patient was viewed as the best informant. Proxy information on HRQoL and health preferences was used to direct clinical care, despite not always being trusted. (2) Prioritisation of HRQoL within decision-making-this varied across the patient's health care trajectory. Premorbid HRQoL was prioritised when making admission decisions and used to predict future HRQoL. (3) Role of physician in decision-making-the physicians described their role as representing society with peers influencing their decision-making. All participants considered their practice to be similar to their peers, referring to their practice as the "middle of the road". This is a novel finding, emphasising other important influences in high-stakes decision-making. CONCLUSION: Critical care physicians conceptualised HRQoL as a multi-dimensional subjective construct. Patient (or proxy) voice was integral in establishing patient HRQoL and future health preferences. HRQoL was important in high stakes decision-making including initiating invasive and burdensome therapies or in redirecting therapeutic goals.