Implementing early rehabilitation and mobilisation for children in UK paediatric intensive care units: the PERMIT feasibility study.

Background: Early rehabilitation and mobilisation encompass patient-tailored interventions, delivered within intensive care, but there are few studies in children and young people within paediatric intensive care units. Objectives: To explore how healthcare professionals currently practise early rehabilitation and mobilisation using qualitative and quantitative approaches; co-design the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual of early rehabilitation and mobilisation interventions, with primary and secondary patient-centred outcomes; explore feasibility and acceptability of implementing the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual within three paediatric intensive care units. Design: Mixed-methods feasibility with five interlinked studies (scoping review, survey, observational study, codesign workshops, feasibility study) in three phases. Setting: United Kingdom paediatric intensive care units. Participants: Children and young people aged 0-16 years remaining within paediatric intensive care on day 3, their parents/guardians and healthcare professionals. Interventions: In Phase 3, unit-wide implementation of manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation. Main outcome measures: Phase 1 observational study: prevalence of any early rehabilitation and mobilisation on day 3. Phase 3 feasibility study: acceptability of early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention; adverse events; acceptability of study design; acceptability of outcome measures. Data sources: Searched Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, PEDro, Open grey and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Review methods: Narrative synthesis. Results: In the scoping review we identified 36 full-text reports evaluating rehabilitation initiated within 7 days of paediatric intensive care unit admission, outlining non-mobility and mobility early rehabilitation and mobilisation interventions from 24 to 72 hours and delivered twice daily. With the survey, 124/191 (65%) responded from 26/29 (90%) United Kingdom paediatric intensive care units; the majority considered early rehabilitation and mobilisation a priority. The observational study followed 169 patients from 15 units; prevalence of any early rehabilitation and mobilisation on day 3 was 95.3%. We then developed a manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention informed by current evidence, experience and theory. All three sites implemented the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual successfully, recruited to target (30 patients recruited) and followed up the patients until day 30 or discharge; 21/30 parents consented to complete additional outcome measures. Limitations: The findings represent the views of National Health Service staff but may not be generalisable. We were unable to conduct workshops and interviews with children, young people and parents to support the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual development due to pandemic restrictions. Conclusions: A randomised controlled trial is recommended to assess the effectiveness of the manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention. Future work: A definitive cluster randomised trial of early rehabilitation and mobilisation in paediatric intensive care requires selection of outcome measure and health economic evaluation. Study registration: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019151050. The Phase 1 observational study is registered Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04110938 (Phase 1) (registered 1 October 2019) and the Phase 3 feasibility study is registered NCT04909762 (Phase 3) (registered 2 June 2021). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/21/06) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 27. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Early rehabilitation and mobilisation, within the first week of intensive care admission, can improve the speed of recovery from illness or injury in adults. However, there is a lack of evidence about whether critically unwell children benefit from early rehabilitation and mobilisation. We aimed to identify which patients may benefit from early rehabilitation and mobilisation. Also, to develop and test a manual of early rehabilitation and mobilisation using the best evidence and expertise ­ called the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual. Then evaluate whether the manual could be implemented safely in paediatric intensive care units and was acceptable to staff and families. We undertook in respect of early rehabilitation and mobilisation: review of existing research; national survey of practice (124 staff); gathered information about current conduct (15 paediatric intensive care units, 169 patients); spoke to experts (18 people); developed the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual to guide paediatric intensive care unit staff; Tested the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual in three paediatric intensive care units with 30 patients; gathered feedback from healthcare professionals via weekly 'debriefs' (47), interviews (13) and surveys (118), and from parents via parent-completed questionnaires (21) and interviews (14). Despite being regarded as important, currently early rehabilitation and mobilisation practice is inconsistent, not considered 'early' enough and often focuses on low-risk activities conducted on the bed. Introducing the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual as part of a trial was acceptable and feasible and helps standardise delivery to unwell children. Measuring child and parent reported outcomes was acceptable but follow-up at 30 days was incomplete. A larger trial of early rehabilitation and mobilisation, involving more paediatric intensive care units, is feasible and required to demonstrate benefit to children.

Co-ordinated multidisciplinary intervention to reduce time to successful extubation for children on mechanical ventilation: the SANDWICH cluster stepped-wedge RCT.

BACKGROUND: Daily assessment of patient readiness for liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation can reduce the duration of ventilation. However, there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of this in a paediatric population. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of a ventilation liberation intervention in critically ill children who are anticipated to have a prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation (primary objective) and in all children (secondary objective). DESIGN: A pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised trial with economic and process evaluations. SETTING: Paediatric intensive care units in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Invasively mechanically ventilated children (aged < 16 years). INTERVENTIONS: The intervention incorporated co-ordinated multidisciplinary care, patient-relevant sedation plans linked to sedation assessment, assessment of ventilation parameters with a higher than usual trigger for undertaking an extubation readiness test and a spontaneous breathing trial on low levels of respiratory support to test extubation readiness. The comparator was usual care. Hospital sites were randomised sequentially to transition from control to intervention and were non-blinded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation until the first successful extubation. The secondary outcome measures were successful extubation, unplanned extubation and reintubation, post-extubation use of non-invasive ventilation, tracheostomy, post-extubation stridor, adverse events, length of intensive care and hospital stay, mortality and cost per respiratory complication avoided at 28 days. RESULTS: The trial included 10,495 patient admissions from 18 paediatric intensive care units from 5 February 2018 to 14 October 2019. In children with anticipated prolonged ventilation (n = 8843 admissions: control, n = 4155; intervention, n = 4688), the intervention resulted in a significantly shorter time to successful extubation [cluster and time-adjusted median difference -6.1 hours (interquartile range -8.2 to -5.3 hours); adjusted hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.20; p = 0.02] and a higher incidence of successful extubation (adjusted relative risk 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.02; p = 0.03) and unplanned extubation (adjusted relative risk 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.51; p = 0.03), but not reintubation (adjusted relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.36; p = 0.38). In the intervention period, the use of post-extubation non-invasive ventilation was significantly higher (adjusted relative risk 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.49; p = 0.04), with no evidence of a difference in intensive care length of stay or other harms, but hospital length of stay was longer (adjusted hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.97; p = 0.01). Findings for all children were broadly similar. The control period was associated with lower, but not statistically significantly lower, total costs (cost difference, mean £929.05, 95% confidence interval -£516.54 to £2374.64) and significantly fewer respiratory complications avoided (mean difference -0.10, 95% confidence interval -0.16 to -0.03). LIMITATIONS: The unblinded intervention assignment may have resulted in performance or detection bias. It was not possible to determine which components were primarily responsible for the observed effect. Treatment effect in a more homogeneous group remains to be determined. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention resulted in a statistically significant small reduction in time to first successful extubation; thus, the clinical importance of the effect size is uncertain. FUTURE WORK: Future work should explore intervention sustainability and effects of the intervention in other paediatric populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN16998143. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Mechanical ventilation is a life-saving therapy, but may involve related risks because of the breathing tube in the mouth and throat, the sedative drugs required to reduce anxiety and remaining confined to bed. Therefore, getting off the ventilator (called weaning) is an important patient outcome. Previous studies have shown that an organised approach involving nurses, doctors and physiotherapists reduces the time that patients spend on the ventilator. Our study involved more than 10,000 patients admitted to 18 children's intensive care units. We tested a co-ordinated staff approach for managing a child's sedation and ventilator needs against usual care, which was mainly consultant led and did not involve bedside nurses. We wanted to find out if this approach improved the outcomes for children and did not cause additional harm. We first collected information in the intensive care units when children were weaned from the ventilator using usual care. Following staff training in the new approach, we compared children's outcomes between the two approaches. Compared with usual care, the new approach reduced the time that children spent on the ventilator by between 5 and 9 hours, and increased children's chances of having their breathing tube removed successfully. Some children pulled out their breathing tubes themselves before it was medically planned to do so. This happened more with the new approach, but the chance of needing the breathing tube put back in was not different from usual care. With the new approach, more children needed to use a mask ventilator than those receiving usual care, although the length of time that this was required was not different from usual care. The intensive care length of stay was the same for children receiving the new approach and usual care. However, with the new approach, children stayed in hospital 1 day longer, which resulted in higher costs (£715 per child); thus, the clinical relevance is uncertain.

Reliability in the assessment of paediatric somatosensory evoked potentials post cardiac arrest.

OBJECTIVE: To measure inter- and intra-rater agreement in the interpretation of cortical somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) components following paediatric cardiac arrest (CA) in multi-professional neurophysiology teams. METHODS: Thirteen professionals blinded to patient outcome interpreted 96 SSEPs in paediatric patients 24-/48-/72-hours following CA. Of these, 34 were duplicates used to assess intra-rater agreement. Consistent interpretations (absent/present/indeterminate) between scientists (who record/identify SSEP components) and neurophysiologists (who provide prognostic SSEP interpretation) were expressed as percentages. Rates of agreement were calculated using Fleiss' kappa coefficient (K). RESULTS: Unanimous agreement between professionals was present in 40% (95%CI: 28-54%) of the interpreted SSEPs, with a K value of 0.62 (95%CI: 0.55-0.70) based on average agreement. Agreement was similar between neurophysiologists (K = 0.67; 95%CI: 0.57-0.77) and scientists (K = 0.62; 95%CI: 0.54-0.70) but lower in patients < 2 years old (K = 0.23; 95%CI: 0.14-0.33) and in those with poor outcome (K = 0.21; 95%CI: 0.07-0.35). No SSEP was unanimously interpreted as absent and 92% (95%CI: 89-95%) of duplicate SSEPs were interpreted consistently. CONCLUSION: Despite substantial agreement when interpreting prognostic SSEPs, this was significantly lower in children with poor outcome and of younger age. SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians using SSEPs in the intensive care unit should be aware of the inter-rater variability when interpreting SSEPs as absent.

First-line support for assistance in breathing in children: statistical and health economic analysis plan for the FIRST-ABC trial.

BACKGROUND: The FIRST-ABC trial comprises of two pragmatic, multicentre, parallel groups, non-inferiority randomised clinical trials designed to evaluate the clinical non-inferiority of first-line use of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in critically ill children who require non-invasive respiratory support (NRS). OBJECTIVES: To describe the pre-specified statistical and health economic analysis for the FIRST-ABC trial before completion of patient recruitment and data collection. METHODS: The statistical analysis plan was designed by the chief investigators and statisticians. We define the primary and secondary outcomes, summarise methods for data collection and safety monitoring, and present a detailed description of the planned statistical and health economic analysis. RESULTS: The primary clinical outcome is time to liberation from respiratory support. The primary effect estimate will be the adjusted hazard ratio, reported with a 95% confidence interval. As a sensitivity analysis, the primary analysis will be repeated using time to start weaning of NRS. Subgroup analyses will be performed to test for interactions between the effect of allocated treatment group and pre-specified baseline covariates. The health economic analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle and report the mean (95% confidence interval) incremental costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness up to 6 months. All analyses will be performed separately for each of the two trials, and any results will not be combined. CONCLUSION: The FIRST-ABC trial will assess the non-inferiority of HFNC compared to CPAP in two parallel trials with shared infrastructure (step-up RCT and step-down RCT). We have developed a pre-specified statistical and health economics analysis plan for the FIRST-ABC study before trial completion to minimise analytical bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN60048867 . Registered on 19 June 2019.

Sedation AND Weaning In Children (SANDWICH): protocol for a cluster randomised stepped wedge trial.

INTRODUCTION: Weaning from ventilation is a complex process involving several stages that include recognition of patient readiness to begin the weaning process, steps to reduce ventilation while optimising sedation in order not to induce distress and removing the endotracheal tube. Delay at any stage can prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation. We developed a multicomponent intervention targeted at helping clinicians to safely expedite this process and minimise the harms associated with unnecessary mechanical ventilation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a 20-month cluster randomised stepped wedge clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with an internal pilot and a process evaluation. It is being conducted in 18 paediatric intensive care units in the UK to evaluate a protocol-based intervention for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation. Following an initial 8-week baseline data collection period in all sites, one site will be randomly chosen to transition to the intervention every 4 weeks and will start an 8-week training period after which it will continue the intervention for the remaining duration of the study. We aim to recruit approximately 10 000 patients. The primary analysis will compare data from before the training (control) with that from after the training (intervention) in each site. Full details of the analyses will be in the statistical analysis plan. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was reviewed and approved by NRES Committee East Midlands-Nottingham 1 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 17/EM/0301). All sites started patient recruitment on 5 February 2018 before randomisation in April 2018. Results will be disseminated in 2020. The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16998143.

Defining criteria and resource use for high dependency care in children: an observational economic study.

OBJECTIVES: Internationally there is no consensus on defining and funding of paediatric high dependency care (HDC). This study tested whether a new UK Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) classification for HDC, with two categories of basic and advanced HDC, can identify children who consume greater staff resource. It also explored the impact of a change in basic HDC HRG criteria introduced in April 2011. DESIGN: Observational study of medical and nursing staff resource use. SETTING: 16 paediatric wards across 6 regional hospitals; 1 tertiary children's hospital (November 2010 to March 2011). PARTICIPANTS: 1098 infants and children admitted to paediatric wards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of children meeting criteria for basic and advanced HDC HRGs; care in a cubicle; medical and nursing staff costs, extrapolated from time spent at patient bedside. RESULTS: 223 (20.3%) children met original HDC criteria (15.9% basic, 4.4% advanced). This fell to 88 (8.0%) with the change in basic HDC definition (3.6% basic, 4.4% advanced). Children who met original HDC criteria consumed greater bedside staff resource than those not meeting criteria (cost ratio 1.0:1.75:2.96 (non-HDC:basic HDC:advanced HDC)), with revised criteria identifying a (smaller) basic group with greater staff resource use (cost ratio 1.0:2.35:2.76). Being cared for in a cubicle was not associated with greater staff costs. CONCLUSIONS: HDC HRG criteria identify children who consume significantly greater staff resources. Revision of the definition has resulted in a large reduction of cases meeting the criteria but identifies a group consuming greater staff resources.