Early mobilisation for prevention and treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Does early mobilisation as standalone or part of a bundle intervention, compared to usual care, prevent and/or shorten delirium in adult patients in Intensive Care Units? BACKGROUND: Early mobilisation is recommended for the prevention and treatment of delirium in critically ill patients, but the evidence remains inconclusive. METHOD: Systematic literature search in Pubmed, CINAHL, PEDRo, Cochrane from inception to March 2022, and hand search in previous meta-analysis. Included were randomized trials or quality-improvement projects. meta-analysis was performed for Odds Ratios or mean differences including 95% Confidence Intervals for presence/duration of delirium. Risk of bias was assessed by using Joanna Briggs Quality criteria. meta-regression was performed to analyse heterogeneity. RESULTS: The search led to 13 studies of low-moderate risk of bias including 2,164 patients. Early mobilisation reduced the risk of delirium by 47 % (13 studies, 2,164 patients, low to moderate risk of bias: Odds Ratio 0.53 (95 % Confidence Interval 0.34 till 0.83, p = 0.01), with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 78 %, p < 0.001). Early mobilisation also reduced the duration of delirium by 1.8 days (3 studies, 296 patients, low-moderate risk of bias: Mean difference -1.78 days (95 % Confidence Interval -2.73 till -0.83 days, p < 0.001), heterogeneity 0 % (p = 0.41). Other analyses such as low risk of bias studies, randomised trials, studies published ≥ 2017, high intensity, and mobilisation as stand-alone intervention showed no significant results, with conflicting certainty of evidence and high heterogeneity. meta-regression could not explain heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: There is an uncertain effect of mobilisation on delirium. Provision of early mobilisation to critical ill patients might prevent delirium. There is a possible effect of early mobilisation to shorten the duration of delirium. Due to the heterogeneity in the findings, further research to define the best method and dosage of early rehabilitation is required.

Virtual Post-Intensive-Care Rehabilitation for Survivors of COVID-19: A Service Evaluation.

AIM: The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety, utilisation, and effectiveness of a novel, virtual rehabilitation programme for survivors of SARS­CoV­2 infection (COVID-19) and intensive care admission. METHODS: A service evaluation was performed. Adults admitted to a United Kingdom intensive care unit with COVID-19-induced respiratory failure and surviving hospital discharge were invited to an eight-week rehabilitation programme. The programme consisted of virtually delivered exercise classes and support groups led by critical care physiotherapists and follow-up nurses. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of 76 eligible patients (50%) agreed to participate, of which 28 (74%) completed the rehabilitation programme. On completion of the rehabilitation programme, there were significant improvements in exercise capacity (one-minute sit-to-stand test; 20 stands vs. 25 stands, p < 0.001), perceived breathlessness (Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale; 3 vs. 2 p < 0.001), shoulder disability (Quick Dash; 43 vs. 19 p = 0.001), anxiety (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale; 4 vs. 3 p = 0.021), depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale; 4 vs. 2.5 p = 0.010), and psychological distress (Intensive Care Psychological Assessment Tool; 3 vs. 2 p = 0.002). No adverse events or injuries were recorded during the programme. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to recruit and retain survivors of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure for virtual post-intensive-care rehabilitation. It appears that the virtual rehabilitation programme is safe and improves physical and psychological morbidity.

Mobilization in the evening to prevent delirium: A pilot randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common complication in patients in Intensive Care Units (ICU). Interventions such as mobilization are effective in the prevention and treatment of delirium, although this is usually completed during the daytime. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of mobilization in the evening to prevent and treat ICU patients from delirium by an additional mobility team over 2 weeks. METHODS: The design was a pilot, multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial in four mixed ICUs over a period of 2 weeks. The mobility team consisted of trained nurses and physiotherapists. Patients in the intervention group were mobilized onto the edge of the bed or more between 21.00 and 23.00. Patients in the control group received usual care. The primary outcome parameter was the feasibility of the study, measured as recruitment rate, delivery rate, and safety. Secondary outcomes were duration and incidence of delirium, mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), and hospital length of stay for 28 days follow-up, and power calculation for a full trial. RESULTS: Out of 185 patients present in the ICUs, 28.6% (n = 53) were eligible and could be recruited, of which 24.9% (n = 46, Intervention = 26, Control = 20) were included in the final analysis. In the intervention group, mobilization could be delivered in 75% (n = 54) of 72 possible occasions; mobilization-related safety events appeared in 16.7% (n = 9) without serious consequences. Secondary parameters were similar, with less delirium in the intervention group albeit not significant. With an association of Cramer's V = 0.237, a complete study reaching statistical significance would require at least 140 patients, last 6 weeks, and cost >30 000 €. CONCLUSIONS: In a mixed ICU population, mobilization in the evening was feasible in one-quarter of patients with a low rate of safety events. Future trials seem to be feasible and worth conducting.

The state of mixed methods research in nursing: A focused mapping review and synthesis.

AIMS: To consider the scope and quality of mixed methods research in nursing. DESIGN: Focused mapping review and synthesis (FMRS). DATA SOURCES: Five purposively selected journals: International Journal of Nursing Studies, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, and Journal of Mixed Methods Research. REVIEW METHODS: In the target journals, titles and abstracts from papers published between 2015-2018 were searched for the words or derivative words 'mixed methods'. Additional keyword searches were undertaken using each journal's search tool. We included studies that investigated nursing and reported to use a mixed methods approach. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were read in full and information was extracted onto a predetermined pro forma. Findings across journals were then synthesized to illustrate the current state of mixed methods research in nursing. RESULTS: We located 34 articles that reported on mixed methods research, conducted across 18 countries. Articles differed significantly both within and across journals in terms of conformity to a mixed methods approach. We assessed the studies for the quality of their reporting as regard the use of mixed methods. Nineteen studies were rated as satisfactory or good, with 15 rated as poorly described. Primarily, a poor rating was due to the absence of stating an underpinning methodological approach to the study and/or limited detail of a crucial integration phase. CONCLUSIONS: Our FMRS revealed a paucity of published mixed methods research in the journals selected. When they are published, there are limitations in the detail given to the underpinning methodological approach and theoretical explanation.