Treatment Fidelity in 94 Randomized Controlled Trials of Physical Rehabilitation in the ICU: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Recent reviews demonstrated discordant effects of ICU-based physical rehabilitation on physical function. These inconsistencies may be related to differences in treatment fidelity-the extent to which a protocol is delivered as planned. Before evaluating the association of fidelity with outcomes, we must first understand the extent of treatment fidelity reporting in ICU-based physical rehabilitation randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: Six electronic databases from inception to December 2022. STUDY SELECTION: We included RCTs enrolling adults or children admitted to the ICU, if greater than or equal to 50% were invasively mechanically ventilated greater than 24 hours, and underwent an ICU-based physical rehabilitation intervention, with no limitation to comparators or outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: We screened and extracted data independently and in duplicate, with a third reviewer as needed. Extracted data included study characteristics, treatment descriptions, and the presence of National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium (NIH-BCC) treatment fidelity tool components. Treatment fidelity scores were calculated as the proportion of reported (numerator) out of total NIH-BCC components (denominator). We calculated scores across studies and by treatment group (intervention vs. comparator). We used linear regression to assess for a time trend in study treatment fidelity scores. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 20,433 citations, 94 studies met inclusion criteria. Authors reported a median (first-third quartiles) of 19% (14-26%) of treatment fidelity components across studies. Intervention group scores were higher than comparator groups (24% [19-33%] vs. 14% [5-24%], p < 0.01). We found a mean increase in study treatment fidelity scores by 0.7% (0.3 points) per year. CONCLUSIONS: Only 19% of treatment fidelity components were reported across studies, with comparator groups more poorly reported. Future research could investigate ways to optimize treatment fidelity reporting and determine characteristics associated with treatment fidelity conduct in ICU-based physical rehabilitation RCTs.

The response of Canada's clinical health research ecosystem to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The response of Canada's research community to the COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to examine the country's clinical health research ecosystem. We sought to describe patterns of enrolment across Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)-funded studies on COVID-19. METHODS: We identified COVID-19 studies funded by the CIHR and that enrolled participants from Canadian acute care hospitals between January 2020 and April 2023. We collected information on study-and site-level variables from study leads, site investigators, and public domain sources. We described and evaluated factors associated with cumulative enrolment. RESULTS: We obtained information for 23 out of 26 (88%) eligible CIHR-funded studies (16 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 7 cohort studies). The 23 studies were managed by 12 Canadian and 3 international coordinating centres. Of 419 Canadian hospitals, 97 (23%) enrolled a total of 28 973 participants - 3876 in RCTs across 78 hospitals (median cumulative enrolment per hospital 30, interquartile range [IQR] 10-61), and 25 097 in cohort studies across 62 hospitals (median cumulative enrolment per hospital 158, IQR 6-348). Of 78 hospitals recruiting participants in RCTs, 13 (17%) enrolled 50% of all RCT participants, whereas 6 of 62 hospitals (9.7%) recruited 54% of participants in cohort studies. INTERPRETATION: A minority of Canadian hospitals enrolled the majority of participants in CIHR-funded studies on COVID-19. This analysis sheds light on the Canadian health research ecosystem and provides information for multiple key partners to consider ways to realize the full research potential of Canada's health systems.

Post-Intensive Care Sequelae in Pediatrics-Results of an Early Rehabilitation Implementation Study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare post-PICU discharge functioning, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and parental stress before and after the implementation of an early rehabilitation bundle. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort substudy within an early rehabilitation implementation program, conducted at the PICUs at McMaster Children's Hospital and London Health Sciences, London, Ontario, Canada. INTERVENTIONS: A bundle consisting of: 1) analgesia-first sedation; 2) delirium monitoring and prevention; and 3) early mobilization. Patients with an anticipated 48-hour PICU length of stay were approached for consent to participate. PATIENTS: Critically ill children with an anticipated 48-hour PICU length of stay were approached for consent to participate. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patient-/proxy-reported outcome measures were assessed at baseline, PICU discharge, and 1 and 3 months post-PICU discharge using: 1) Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Computer Adaptive Test to assess physical, social, cognitive, and responsibility/caregiver domains of functioning; 2) KIDSCREEN to assess HRQL; and 3) the Pediatric Inventory for Parents to assess caregiver stress. A total of 117 participants were enrolled. Patient demographic characteristics were similar in the pre- and post-intervention groups. Following bundle implementation, 30 of 47 respondents (63.8%) experienced functional decline and 18 of 45 (40%) experienced low HRQL at PICU discharge. Eighteen of 36 (50%) at 1 month and 14 of 38 (36.8%) at 3 months experienced either persistent functional decline and/or low HRQL; 2.8% and 2.6% at 1- and 3-month follow-up, respectively, experienced both persistent functional decline and low HRQL. There were no significant differences in the rates of persistent functional decline, low HRQL, or caregiver stress scores post-bundle compared with pre-rehabilitation bundle implementation. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to adequately determine the efficacy of a rehabilitation bundle on patient-centered outcomes as this substudy was not powered for these outcomes. Our results did reveal that persistent low functioning is common in PICU survivors, more common than low HRQL, while experiencing both functional decline and low HRQL was uncommon.

Early Rehabilitation in Critically ill Children: A Two Center Implementation Study.

OBJECTIVES: To implement an early rehabilitation bundle in two Canadian PICUs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Implementation study in the PICUs at McMaster Children's Hospital (site 1) and London Health Sciences (site 2). PATIENTS: All children under 18 years old admitted to the PICU were eligible for the intervention. INTERVENTIONS: A bundle consisting of: 1) analgesia-first sedation; 2) delirium monitoring and prevention; and 3) early mobilization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes were the duration of implementation, bundle compliance, process of care, safety, and the factors influencing implementation. Secondary endpoints were the impact of the bundle on clinical outcomes such as pain, delirium, iatrogenic withdrawal, ventilator-free days, length of stay, and mortality. Implementation occurred over 26 months (August 2018 to October 2020). Data were collected on 1,036 patients representing 4,065 patient days. Bundle compliance was optimized within 6 months of roll-out. Goal setting for mobilization and level of arousal improved significantly (p < 0.01). Benzodiazepine, opioid, and dexmedetomidine use decreased in site 1 by 23.2% (95% CI, 30.8-15.5%), 26.1% (95% CI, 34.8-17.4%), and 9.2% (95% CI, 18.2-0.2%) patient exposure days, respectively, while at site 2, only dexmedetomidine exposure decreased significantly by 10.5% patient days (95% CI, 19.8-1.1%). Patient comfort, safety, and nursing workload were not adversely affected. There was no significant impact of the bundle on the rate of delirium, ventilator-free days, length of PICU stay, or mortality. Key facilitators to implementation included institutional support, unit-wide practice guidelines, dedicated PICU educators, easily accessible resources, and family engagement. CONCLUSIONS: A rehabilitation bundle can improve processes of care and reduce patient sedative exposure without increasing patient discomfort, nursing workload, or harm. We did not observe an impact on short-term clinical outcomes. The efficacy of a PICU-rehabilitation bundle requires ongoing study. Lessons learned in this study provide evidence to inform rehabilitation implementation in the PICU setting.

Arm cycle ergometry in critically ill patients: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) survivors face functional limitations due to ICU-acquired weakness. Arm cycle ergometry (ACE) introduced in the ICU may improve physical function. To our knowledge, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of ACE and physical function outcomes in critically ill patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to examine the impact of ICU-based ACE on physical function, safety, and other clinical outcomes. REVIEW METHOD USED: Systematic Review. DATA SOURCES: A search of seven databases was conducted from the inception to January 1, 2023: Medline Ahead of Print, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Embase, Cochrane Central, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). REVIEW METHODS: We included two arm studies of critically ill adults admitted to the ICU who received ACE and any comparator for our primary outcome, physical function. Our secondary outcomes included severe events. We included safety studies with or without a comparator group. Screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessments were completed independently, in duplicate. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the overall certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We screened 651 citations and included eight studies that enrolled 183 patients. Due to heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not performed. For our primary outcome, one randomised controlled trial found significant improvements in physical function, measured by the Barthel Index with ACE, whereas a nonrandomised study showed no difference. Out of the six studies reporting safety, none reported any severe safety events. The overall certainty of evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: ACE initiated in the ICU is a likely safe intervention. Based on the limited ACE studies and heterogeneity between studies, further research with more rigorous studies evaluating important outcomes for patients is needed.

The sit-to-stand test as a patient-centered functional outcome for critical care research: a pooled analysis of five international rehabilitation studies.

BACKGROUND: With ICU mortality rates decreasing, it is increasingly important to identify interventions to minimize functional impairments and improve outcomes for survivors. Simultaneously, we must identify robust patient-centered functional outcomes for our trials. Our objective was to investigate the clinimetric properties of a progression of three outcome measures, from strength to function. METHODS: Adults (≥ 18 years) enrolled in five international ICU rehabilitation studies. Participants required ICU admission were mechanically ventilated and previously independent. Outcomes included two components of the Physical Function in ICU Test-scored (PFIT-s): knee extensor strength and assistance required to move from sit to stand (STS); the 30-s STS (30 s STS) test was the third outcome. We analyzed survivors at ICU and hospital discharge. We report participant demographics, baseline characteristics, and outcome data using descriptive statistics. Floor effects represented ≥ 15% of participants with minimum score and ceiling effects ≥ 15% with maximum score. We calculated the overall group difference score (hospital discharge score minus ICU discharge) for participants with paired assessments. RESULTS: Of 451 participants, most were male (n = 278, 61.6%) with a median age between 60 and 66 years, a mean APACHE II score between 19 and 24, a median duration of mechanical ventilation between 4 and 8 days, ICU length of stay (LOS) between 7 and 11 days, and hospital LOS between 22 and 31 days. For knee extension, we observed a ceiling effect in 48.5% (160/330) of participants at ICU discharge and in 74.7% (115/154) at hospital discharge; the median [1st, 3rd quartile] PFIT-s difference score (n = 139) was 0 [0,1] (p < 0.05). For STS assistance, we observed a ceiling effect in 45.9% (150/327) at ICU discharge and in 77.5% (79/102) at hospital discharge; the median PFIT-s difference score (n = 87) was 1 [0, 2] (p < 0.05). For 30 s STS, we observed a floor effect in 15.0% (12/80) at ICU discharge but did not observe a floor or ceiling effect at hospital discharge. The median 30 s STS difference score (n = 54) was 3 [1, 6] (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Among three progressive outcome measures evaluated in this study, the 30 s STS test appears to have the most favorable clinimetric properties to assess function at ICU and hospital discharge in moderate to severely ill participants.

Outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 survivors and caregivers: a case study-centred narrative review.

PURPOSE: Critical illness is a transformative experience for both patients and their family members. For COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), survival may be the start of a long road to recovery. Our knowledge of the post-ICU long-term sequelae of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) may inform our understanding and management of the long-term effects of COVID-19. SOURCE: We identified international and Canadian epidemiologic data on ICU admissions for COVID-19, COVID-19 pathophysiology, emerging ICU practice patterns, early reports of long-term outcomes, and federal support programs for survivors and their families. Centred around an illustrating case study, we applied relevant literature from ARDS and SARS to contextualize knowledge within emerging COVID-19 research and extrapolate findings to future long-term outcomes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: COVID-19 is a multisystem disease with unknown long-term morbidity and mortality. Its pathophysiology is distinct and unique from ARDS, SARS, and critical illness. Nevertheless, based on initial reports of critical care management for COVID-19 and the varied injurious supportive practices employed in the ICU, patients and families are at risk for post-intensive care syndrome. The distinct incremental risk of COVID-19 multiple organ dysfunction is unknown. The risk of mood disorders in family members may be further exacerbated by imposed isolation and stigma. CONCLUSION: Emerging literature on COVID-19 outcomes suggests some similarities with those of ARDS/SARS and prolonged mechanical ventilation. The pathophysiology of COVID-19 is presented here in the context of early outcome data and to inform an agenda for longitudinal research for patients and families.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les maladies au stade critique constituent une expérience bouleversante tant pour les patients que pour leurs proches. Pour les patients atteints de la COVID-19 admis aux soins intensifs (USI), la survie peut être le début d'un long parcours vers la guérison. Notre connaissance des séquelles à long terme post-USI d'un syndrome de détresse respiratoire aiguë (SDRA) ou d'un syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS) pourrait éclairer notre compréhension et notre prise en charge des effets à long terme de la COVID-19. SOURCES: Nous avons identifié des données épidémiologiques internationales et canadiennes sur les admissions aux soins intensifs pour la COVID-19, la physiopathologie de la COVID-19, les schémas de pratique émergents en soins intensifs, les premiers rapports sur les issues à long terme et les programmes de soutien fédéraux pour les survivants et leurs familles. En nous centrant autour d'une étude de cas pour illustrer notre propos, nous avons appliqué la littérature pertinente à propos du SDRA et du SRAS afin de contextualiser les connaissances de la recherche émergente sur la COVID-19 et extrapoler les conclusions aux futures issues à long terme. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: La COVID-19 est une maladie multisystémique dont la morbidité et la mortalité à long terme sont inconnues. Sa physiopathologie est unique et distincte du SDRA, du SRAS et des maladies graves. Néanmoins, en nous fondant sur les rapports initiaux de prise en charge aux soins intensifs de la COVID-19 et sur les diverses pratiques de support préjudiciables utilisées aux soins intensifs, les patients et les familles sont à risque de syndrome post-soins intensifs. Le risque distinct supplémentaire de dysfonctionnement multiviscéral de la COVID-19 est inconnu. Le risque de troubles de l'humeur chez les proches peut être encore exacerbé par l'isolement imposé et la stigmatisation. CONCLUSION: La littérature émergente sur les issues de la COVID-19 suggère certaines similitudes avec celles du SDRA/SRAS et de la ventilation mécanique prolongée. La physiopathologie de la COVID-19 est présentée ici dans le contexte des premières données sur les issues et pour éclairer un programme de recherche longitudinale pour les patients et leurs familles.

Evidence-informed consensus statements to guide COVID-19 patient visitation policies: results from a national stakeholder meeting.

PURPOSE: Hospital policies forbidding or limiting families from visiting relatives on the intensive care unit (ICU) has affected patients, families, healthcare professionals, and patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). We sought to refine evidence-informed consensus statements to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies during the current COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and sustained uptake in Canadian ICUs. METHODS: We created consensus statements from 36 evidence-informed experiences (i.e., impacts on patients, families, healthcare professionals, and PFCC) and 63 evidence-informed strategies (i.e., ways to improve restricted visitation) identified during a modified Delphi process (described elsewhere). Over two half-day virtual meetings on 7 and 8 April 2021, 45 stakeholders (patients, families, researchers, clinicians, decision-makers) discussed and refined these consensus statements. Through qualitative descriptive content analysis, we evaluated the following points for 99 consensus statements: 1) their importance for improving restricted visitation policies; 2) suggested modifications to make them more applicable; and 3) facilitators and barriers to implementing these statements when creating ICU visitation policies. RESULTS: Through discussion, participants identified three areas for improvement: 1) clarity, 2) accessibility, and 3) feasibility. Stakeholders identified several implementation facilitators (clear, flexible, succinct, and prioritized statements available in multiple modes), barriers (perceived lack of flexibility, lack of partnership between government and hospital, change fatigue), and ways to measure and monitor their use (e.g., family satisfaction, qualitative interviews). CONCLUSIONS: Existing guidance on policies that disallowed or restricted visitation in intensive care units were confusing, hard to operationalize, and often lacked supporting evidence. Prioritized, succinct, and clear consensus statements allowing for local adaptability are necessary to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies and to optimize PFCC.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les politiques hospitalières interdisant ou limitant les visites des familles à des proches à l'unité de soins intensifs (USI) ont affecté les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille (SCPF). Nous avons cherché à affiner les déclarations de consensus fondées sur des données probantes afin de guider la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs pendant la pandémie actuelle de COVID-19 et les pandémies futures, et dans le but d'identifier les obstacles et les critères facilitants à leur mise en œuvre et à leur adoption répandue dans les unités de soins intensifs canadiennes. MéTHODE: Nous avons créé des déclarations de consensus à partir de 36 expériences fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. impacts sur les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les SCPF) et 63 stratégies fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. moyens d'améliorer les restrictions des visites) identifiées au cours d'un processus Delphi modifié (décrit ailleurs). Au cours de deux réunions virtuelles d'une demi-journée tenues les 7 et 8 avril 2021, 45 intervenants (patients, familles, chercheurs, cliniciens, décideurs) ont discuté et affiné ces déclarations de consensus. Grâce à une analyse descriptive qualitative du contenu, nous avons évalué les points suivants pour 99 déclarations de consensus : 1) leur importance pour l'amélioration des politiques de restriction des visites; 2) les modifications suggérées pour les rendre plus applicables; et 3) les critères facilitants et les obstacles à la mise en œuvre de ces déclarations lors de la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs. RéSULTATS: En discutant, les participants ont identifié trois domaines à améliorer : 1) la clarté, 2) l'accessibilité et 3) la faisabilité. Les intervenants ont identifié plusieurs critères facilitants à la mise en œuvre (énoncés clairs, flexibles, succincts et hiérarchisés disponibles dans plusieurs modes), des obstacles (manque perçu de flexibilité, manque de partenariat entre le gouvernement et l'hôpital, fatigue du changement) et des moyens de mesurer et de surveiller leur utilisation (p. ex., satisfaction des familles, entrevues qualitatives). CONCLUSION: Les directives existantes sur les politiques qui interdisaient ou limitaient les visites dans les unités de soins intensifs étaient déroutantes, difficiles à mettre en oeuvre et manquaient souvent de données probantes à l'appui. Des déclarations de consensus hiérarchisées, succinctes et claires permettant une adaptabilité locale sont nécessaires pour guider la création de politiques de visite en soins intensifs et pour optimiser les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate. RESULTS: Of 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.

Principles Guiding Nonpandemic Critical Care Research During a Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the importance of critical care clinical research that is not pandemic-focused during pandemic times; outline principles to assist in the prioritization of nonpandemic research during pandemic times; and propose a guiding framework for decisions about whether, when and how to continue nonpandemic research while still honoring the moral and scientific imperative to launch research that is pandemic-focused. DESIGN/DATA SOURCES: Using in-person, email, and videoconference exchanges, we convened an interprofessional clinical research group, conducted a literature review of empirical studies, ethics documents and expert commentaries (2010 to present), and viewed traditional and social media posts (March 2020 to May 2020). Stakeholder consultation involved scientific, ethics, clinical, and administrative leaders. SETTING: Clinical research in the ICU. PATIENTS: Patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: While clinical research should be prioritized to advantage patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in order to care for affected patients, it ideally would not unduly disadvantage patients without coronavirus disease 2019. Thus, timely, rigorous, relevant, and ethical clinical research is needed to improve the care and optimize outcomes for both patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019, acknowledging how many studies that are not exclusively focused on coronavirus disease 2019 remain relevant to patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Considerations to continue nonpandemic-focused research include the status of the pandemic, local jurisdictional guidance, capacity and safety of bedside and research personnel, disposition of patients already enrolled in nonpandemic studies, analyzing characteristics of each nonpandemic-focused study, research oversight, and final reporting requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Deliberation about continuing nonpandemic research should use objective, transparent criteria considering several aspects of the research process such as bedside and research staff safety, infection control, the informed consent model, protocol complexity, data collection, and implementation integrity. Decisions to pause or pursue nonpandemic research should be proportionate, transparent, and revisited as the pandemic abates.

Barriers and Facilitators to Early Rehabilitation in the ICU: A Theory Driven Delphi Study.

OBJECTIVES: There is conflicting evidence for the effectiveness of early rehabilitation in the intensive care and marked variation in rates of implementation in practice. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to early rehabilitation in mechanically ventilated patients and their relevance to practice, as perceived by key ICU clinicians across North America. DESIGN: A Delphi study using the Theoretical Domains Framework, consisting of an initial qualitative round and subsequent quantitative rounds, was conducted to gather clinician agreement and perceived importance of barriers and facilitators to early rehabilitation. The survey included questions on the range of individual, sociocultural, and broader organizational influence on behaviors. SETTING: Clinical practice in North America. SUBJECTS: Four clinician groups (intensive care physicians, nurses, therapists, and respiratory therapists). INTERVENTIONS: A three-round Delphi study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty of 74 (67%) of invited clinicians completed the study. Agreement and consensus with Delphi survey items were high in both rounds within and between professional groups. Agreement was highest for items related to the domain "Beliefs about Consequences" (e.g., mortality reduction) and lowest for items related to the domain "Behavioral Regulation" (e.g., team discussion of barriers). Beliefs expressed about improved mortality and improvements in a variety of other long-term outcomes were not consistent with the current evidence base. Individual agreement scores changed very little from Round 2 to Round 3 of the Delphi, suggesting stability of beliefs and existing consensus. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a wide range of beliefs about early rehabilitation that may influence provider behavior and the success and appropriateness of further implementation. The apparent inconsistency between the optimism of stakeholders regarding mortality reductions and a low level of implementation reported elsewhere represent the most major challenge to future implementation success. Other foci for future implementation work include planning, barriers, feedback, and education of staff.

Feasibility, Reliability, Responsiveness, and Validity of the Patient-Reported Functional Scale for the Intensive Care Unit: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Although many performance-based measures assess patients' physical function in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors, to our knowledge, there are no patient-reported ICU rehabilitation-specific measures assessing function. We developed the Patient-Reported Functional Scale-ICU (PRFS-ICU), which measures patients' perceptions of their ability to perform 6 activities (rolling, sitting edge of bed, sit-to-stand and bed-to-chair transfers, ambulation, and stair climbing). Each item is scored from 0 (unable) to 10 (able to perform at pre-ICU level) to a maximum of 60. OBJECTIVES: Estimate the feasibility, reliability, responsiveness, and validity of the PRFS-ICU. METHODS: This was a substudy of TryCYCLE, a single-center, prospective cohort examining the safety and feasibility of early in-bed cycling with mechanically ventilated patients (NCT01885442). To determine feasibility, we calculated the number of patients with at least 1 PRFS-ICU assessment during their hospital stay. To assess reliability, 2 raters blinded to each other's assessments administered the PRFS-ICU within 24-hours of each other. We calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; 95% confidence interval [CI]), standard error of measurement (SEM, 95% CI), and minimal detectable change (MDC90). To assess validity, we estimated convergent validity of the PRFS-ICU with the Functional Status Score for ICU (FSS-ICU), Medical Research Council Sum Score (MRC-SS), Physical Function Test for ICU (PFIT-s), Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (Katz ADLs), and a pooled index using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r, 95% CI). RESULTS: Feasibility: 20 patients completed a PRFS-ICU assessment. Reliability and responsiveness: 16 patients contributed data. The ICC, SEM, and MDC90 were 0.91 (0.76, 0.97), 4.75 (3.51, 7.35), and 11.04 points, respectively. Validity: 19 patients contributed data and correlations were (r [95% CI]): FSS-ICU (0.40 [-0.14, 0.76]), MRC-SS (0.51 [0.02, 0.80]), PFIT-s (0.43 [-0.13, 0.78]), Katz ADLs (0.53 [0.10, 0.79]), and pooled index (0.48 [-0.14, 0.82]). CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot work suggests the PRFS-ICU may be a useful tool to assess and monitor patients' perceptions of function over time.

Occupational Therapy in the ICU: A Scoping Review of 221 Documents.

OBJECTIVES: Occupational therapists have specialized expertise to enable people to perform meaningful "occupations" that support health, well-being, and participation in life roles. Given the physical, cognitive, and psychologic disability experienced by ICU survivors, occupational therapists could play an important role in their recovery. We conducted a scoping review to determine the state of knowledge of interventions delivered by occupational therapists in adult ICU patients. DATA SOURCES: Eight electronic databases from inception to 05/2018. STUDY SELECTION: We included reports of adult patients receiving direct patient care from an occupational therapist in the ICU, all study designs, and quantitative and qualitative traditions. DATA EXTRACTION: Independently in duplicate, interprofessional team members screened titles, abstracts, and full texts and extracted report and intervention characteristics. From original research articles, we also extracted study design, number of patients, and primary outcomes. We resolved disagreements by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 50,700 citations, 221 reports met inclusion criteria, 74 (79%) published after 2010, and 125 (56%) appeared in critical care journals. The three most commonly reported types of interventions were mobility (81%), physical rehabilitation (61%), and activities of daily living (31%). We identified 46 unique original research studies of occupational therapy interventions; the most common study research design was before-after studies (33%). CONCLUSIONS: The role of occupational therapists in ICU rehabilitation is not currently well established. Current interventions in the ICU are dominated by physical rehabilitation with a growing role in communication and delirium prevention and care. Given the diverse needs of ICU patients and the scope of occupational therapy, there could be an opportunities for occupational therapists to expand their role and spearhead original research investigating an enriched breadth of ICU interventions.

Frequency of Screening for Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation: Two Contemporaneous Proof-of-Principle Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: It is unknown whether more frequent screening of invasively ventilated patients, identifies patients earlier for a spontaneous breathing trial, and shortens the duration of ventilation. We assessed the feasibility of conducting a large trial to evaluate screening frequency in critically ill adults in the North American context. DESIGN: We conducted two contemporaneous, multicenter, pilot, randomized controlled trials (the LibeRation from MEchanicaL VEntilAtion and ScrEening Frequency [RELEASE] and Screening Elderly PatieNts For InclusiOn in a Weaning [SENIOR] trials) to address concerns regarding the potential for higher enrollment, fewer adverse events, and better outcomes in younger patients. SETTING: Ten and 11 ICUs in Canada, respectively. PATIENTS: Parallel trials of younger (RELEASE < 65 yr) and older (SENIOR ≥ 65 yr) critically ill adults invasively ventilated for at least 24 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Each trial compared once daily screening to "at least twice daily" screening led by respiratory therapists. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In both trials, we evaluated recruitment (aim: 1-2 patients/month/ICU) and consent rates, reasons for trial exclusion, protocol adherence (target: ≥ 80%), crossovers (aim: ≤ 10%), and the effect of the alternative screening frequencies on adverse events and clinical outcomes. We included 155 patients (53 patients [23 once daily, 30 at least twice daily] in RELEASE and 102 patients [54 once daily, 48 at least twice daily] in SENIOR). Between trials, we found similar recruitment rates (1.32 and 1.26 patients/month/ICU) and reasons for trial exclusion, high consent and protocol adherence rates (> 92%), infrequent crossovers, and few adverse events. Although underpowered, at least twice daily screening was associated with a nonsignificantly faster time to successful extubation and more successful extubations but significantly increased use of noninvasive ventilation in both trials combined. CONCLUSIONS: Similar recruitment and consent rates, few adverse events, and comparable outcomes in younger and older patients support conduct of a single large trial in North American ICUs assessing the net clinical benefits associated with more frequent screening.

I SURVIVE: inter-rater reliability of three physical functional outcome measures in intensive care unit survivors.

PURPOSE: We prospectively assessed inter-rater reliability of three physical function measures in Canadian intensive care unit (ICU) survivors in the inpatient setting. METHODS: We enrolled patients who had an ICU length of stay of ≥ three days, were mechanically ventilated for ≥ 24 hr, and were ambulating independently before hospital admission. Weekly from ICU discharge to hospital discharge, two trained frontline clinicians, blinded to each other's findings, independently performed the Physical Function ICU Test-scored (PFIT-s; score out of 10), 30-sec sit-to-stand (30STS; # of stands), and two-minute walk test (2MWT; distance in m), all within 24 hr. We calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change (MDC90). RESULTS: We enrolled 42 patients. PFIT-s: in 36 patients with 66 paired scores, the ICC was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86), the SEM was 1.04, and the MDC90 was 2.42. 30STS: in 35 patients with 67 paired scores, the ICC was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.90), the SEM was 1.91, and the MDC90 was 4.45. 2MWT: in 35 patients with 58 paired scores, the ICC was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.87), the SEM was 20.87, and the MDC90 was 48.69. CONCLUSION: These three measures show good inter-rater reliability when used by trained frontline clinicians to assess physical function in ICU survivors in the inpatient setting.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons évalué de manière prospective la fidélité interobservateurs de trois mesures de la capacité physique fonctionnelle auprès de survivants des unités de soins intensifs (USI) canadiennes dans un cadre hospitalier. MéTHODE: Nous avons recruté des patients qui avaient séjourné à l'USI ≥ trois jours, avaient été sous ventilation mécanique ≥ 24 h et se déplaçaient de façon autonome avant leur admission à l'hôpital. Entre le congé de l'USI et le congé de l'hôpital, deux cliniciens de première ligne formés ont réalisé chaque semaine et de manière indépendante trois tests : le PFIT (Test de la capacité physique fonctionnelle à l'USI - Physical Function ICU Test-scored; score sur 10), le test de 30 sec pour se lever d'une position assise (30STS; # de fois debout), et le test de marche pendant deux minutes (2MWT; distance en m). Les cliniciens n'avaient pas accès aux résultats de leur collègue. Nous avons calculé le coefficient de corrélation intraclasse (CCI), l'erreur type sur la mesure (ETM), et le changement minimal détectable (CMD90). RéSULTATS: Nous avons recruté 42 patients, et observé les résultats suivants : pour le PFIT : chez 36 patients avec 66 scores appariés, le CCI était de 0,78 (intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 0,66 à 0,86), l'ETM de 1,04, et le CMD90 de 2,42; pour le test 30STS : chez 35 patients avec 67 scores appariés, le CCI était de 0,85 (IC 95 %, 0,76 à 0,90), l'ETM de 1,91, et le CMD90 de 4,45; pour le 2MWT : chez 35 patients avec 58 scores appariés, le CCI était de 0,78 (IC 95 %, 0,66 à 0,87, l'ETM de 20,87, et le CMD90 de 48,69. CONCLUSION: Ces trois mesures affichent une bonne fidélité interobservateurs lorsqu'elles sont utilisées par des cliniciens de première ligne formés afin d'évaluer la capacité physique fonctionnelle des survivants de l'USI dans un cadre hospitalier.

Methodologic Innovation in Creating Clinical Practice Guidelines: Insights From the 2018 Society of Critical Care Medicine Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption Guideline Effort.

OBJECTIVES: To describe novel guideline development strategies created and implemented as part of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's 2018 clinical practice guidelines for pain, agitation (sedation), delirium, immobility (rehabilitation/mobility), and sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. DESIGN: We involved critical illness survivors from start to finish, used and expanded upon Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology for making recommendations, identified evidence gaps, and developed communication strategies to mitigate challenges. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Thirty-two experts from five countries, across five topic-specific sections; four methodologists, two medical librarians, four critical illness survivors, and two Society of Critical Care Medicine support staff. INTERVENTIONS: Unique approaches included the following: 1) critical illness survivor involvement to help ensure patient-centered questions and recommendations; 2) qualitative and semiquantitative approaches for developing descriptive statements; 3) operationalizing a three-step approach to generating final recommendations; and 4) systematic identification of evidence gaps. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Critical illness survivors contributed to prioritizing topics, questions, and outcomes, evidence interpretation, recommendation formulation, and article review to ensure that their values and preferences were considered in the guidelines. Qualitative and semiquantitative approaches supported formulating descriptive statements using comprehensive literature reviews, summaries, and large-group discussion. Experts (including the methodologists and guideline chairs) developed and refined guideline recommendations through monthly topic-specific section conference calls. Recommendations were precirculated to all members, presented to, and vetted by, most members at a live meeting. Final electronic voting provided links to all forest plots, evidence summaries, and "evidence to decision" frameworks. Written comments during voting captured dissenting views and were integrated into evidence to decision frameworks and the guideline article. Evidence gaps, reflecting clinical uncertainty in the literature, were identified during the evidence to decision process, live meeting, and voting and formally incorporated into all written recommendation rationales. Frequent scheduled "check-ins" mitigated communication gaps. CONCLUSIONS: Our multifaceted, interdisciplinary approach and novel methodologic strategies can help inform the development of future critical care clinical practice guidelines.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU.

OBJECTIVE: To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU. DESIGN: Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017. METHODS: Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified. RESULTS: The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

The impact of rehabilitative interventions on quality of life: a qualitative evidence synthesis of personal experiences of individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: The nature of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is progressive and degenerative, thus influencing individuals physically, emotionally, and socially. A broad review of qualitative studies that describe the personal experiences of people with ALS with physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech and language pathology interventions, and how those affect QoL is warranted. PURPOSE: This study synthesizes qualitative research regarding the potential that rehabilitation interventions have to maintain and/or improve QoL from the perspective of people with ALS. METHODS: The SPIDER search strategy was applied and five articles met inclusion criteria addressing the perceived impact of rehabilitation on QoL for individuals with ALS. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: the concept of control; adapting interventions to disease stage; struggles with interventions; and barriers between healthcare providers and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation interventions were perceived to have potential to support QoL by people with ALS. Advantages and limitations of rehabilitation services within this population were identified.

Functional Status Score for the ICU: An International Clinimetric Analysis of Validity, Responsiveness, and Minimal Important Difference.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the internal consistency, validity, responsiveness, and minimal important difference of the Functional Status Score for the ICU, a physical function measure designed for the ICU. DESIGN: Clinimetric analysis. SETTINGS: Five international datasets from the United States, Australia, and Brazil. PATIENTS: Eight hundred nineteen ICU patients. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinimetric analyses were initially conducted separately for each data source and time point to examine generalizability of findings, with pooled analyses performed thereafter to increase power of analyses. The Functional Status Score for the ICU demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency. There was good convergent and discriminant validity, with significant and positive correlations (r = 0.30-0.95) between Functional Status Score for the ICU and other physical function measures, and generally weaker correlations with nonphysical measures (|r| = 0.01-0.70). Known group validity was demonstrated by significantly higher Functional Status Score for the ICU scores among patients without ICU-acquired weakness (Medical Research Council sum score, ≥ 48 vs < 48) and with hospital discharge to home (vs healthcare facility). Functional Status Score for the ICU at ICU discharge predicted post-ICU hospital length of stay and discharge location. Responsiveness was supported via increased Functional Status Score for the ICU scores with improvements in muscle strength. Distribution-based methods indicated a minimal important difference of 2.0-5.0. CONCLUSIONS: The Functional Status Score for the ICU has good internal consistency and is a valid and responsive measure of physical function for ICU patients. The estimated minimal important difference can be used in sample size calculations and in interpreting studies comparing the physical function of groups of ICU patients.