The post-ICU presentation screen (PICUPS) and rehabilitation prescription (RP) for intensive care survivors part I: Development and preliminary clinimetric evaluation.

Background: Patients who have had prolonged stays in intensive care have ongoing rehabilitation needs. This is especially true of COVID-19 ICU patients, who can suffer diverse long-term ill effects. Currently there is no systematic data collection to guide the needs for therapy input for either of these groups nor to inform planning and development of rehabilitation services. These issues could be resolved in part by the systematic use of a clinical tool to support decision-making as patients progress from the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), through acute hospital care and onwards into rehabilitation. We describe (i) the development of such a tool (the Post-ICU Presentation Screen (PICUPS)) and (ii) the subsequent preparation of a person-centred Rehabilitation Prescription (RP) to travel with the patient as they continue down the care pathway. Methods: PICUPS development was led by a core group of experienced clinicians representing the various disciplines involved in post-ICU rehabilitation. Key constructs and item-level descriptors were identified by group consensus. Piloting was performed as part of wider clinical engagement in 26 acute hospitals across England. Development and validation of such a tool requires clinimetric analysis, and this was based on classical test theory. Teams also provided feedback about the feasibility and utility of the tool. Results: Initial PICUPS design yielded a 24-item tool. In piloting, a total of 552 records were collated from 314 patients, of which 121 (38.5%) had COVID-19. No obvious floor or ceiling effects were apparent. Exploratory factor analysis provided evidence of uni-dimensionality with strong loading on the first principal component accounting for 51% of the variance and Cronbach's alpha for the full-scale score 0.95 - although a 3-factor solution accounted for a further 21%. The PICUPS was responsive to change both at full scale- and item-level. In general, positive responses were seen regarding the tool's ability to describe the patients during their clinical course, engage and flag the relevant professionals needed, and to inform what should be included in an RP. Conclusions: The PICUPS tool has robust scaling properties as a clinical measure and is potentially useful as a tool for identifying rehabilitation needs as patients step down from ICU and acute hospital care.

The clinically led worforcE and activity redesign (CLEAR) programme: a novel data-driven healthcare improvement methodology.

BACKGROUND: The NHS is facing substantial pressures to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Optimising workforce modelling is a fundamental component of the recovery plan. The Clinically Lead workforcE and Activity Redesign (CLEAR) programme is a unique methodology that trains clinicians to redesign services, building intrinsic capacity and capability, optimising patient care and minimising the need for costly external consultancy. This paper describes the CLEAR methodology and the evaluation of previous CLEAR projects, including the return on investment. METHODS: CLEAR is a work-based learning programme that combines qualitative techniques with data analytics to build innovations and new models of care. It has four unique stages: (1) Clinical engagement- used to gather rich insights from stakeholders and clinicians. (2) Data interrogation- utilising clinical and workforce data for cohort analysis. (3) Innovation- using structured innovation methods to develop new models of care. (4) Recommendations- report writing, impact assessment and presentation of key findings to executive boards. A mixed-methods formative evaluation was carried out on completed projects, which included semi-structured interviews and surveys with CLEAR associates and stakeholders, and a health economic logic model that was developed to link the inputs, processes, outputs and the outcome of CLEAR as well as the potential impacts of the changes identified from the projects. RESULTS: CLEAR provides a more cost-effective delivery of complex change programmes than the alternatives - resulting in a cost saving of £1.90 for every £1 spent independent of implementation success. Results suggest that CLEAR recommendations are more likely to be implemented compared to other complex healthcare interventions because of the levels of clinical engagement and have a potential return on investment of up to £14 over 5 years for every £1 invested. CLEAR appears to have a positive impact on staff retention and wellbeing, the cost of a CLEAR project is covered if one medical consultant remains in post for a year. CONCLUSIONS: The unique CLEAR methodology is a clinically effective and cost-effective complex healthcare innovation that optimises workforce and activity design, as well as improving staff retention. Embedding CLEAR methodology in the NHS could have substantial impact on patient care, staff well-being and service provision.

Mixed methods evaluation of the impact of the COVID-19 ICU remote-learning rehabilitation course for frontline health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

Background: Optimising outcomes for critically ill patients with COVID-19 patients requires early interdisciplinary rehabilitation. As admission numbers soared through the pandemic, the redeployed workforce needed rapid, effective training to deliver these rehabilitation interventions. Methods: The COVID-19 ICU Remote-Learning Rehab Course (CIRLC-rehab) is a one-day interdisciplinary course developed after the success of CIRLC-acute. The aim of CIRLC-rehab was to rapidly train healthcare professionals to deliver physical, nutritional and psychological rehabilitation strategies in the ICU/acute setting. The course used blended learning with interactive tutorials delivered by shielding critical care professionals. CIRLC-rehab was evaluated through a mixed-methods approach, including questionnaires, and follow-up semi-structured interviews to evaluate perceived impact on clinical practice. Quantitative data are reported as n (%) and means (SD). Inductive descriptive thematic analysis with methodological triangulation was used to analyse the qualitative data from the questionnaires and interviews. Results: 805 candidates completed CIRLC-rehab. 627 (78.8%) completed the post-course questionnaire. 95% (n = 596) found CIRLC-rehab extremely or very useful and 96.0% (n = 602) said they were very likely to recommend the course to colleagues. Overall confidence rose from 2.78/5 to 4.14/5. The course promoted holistic and humanised care, facilitated informal networks, promoted interdisciplinary working and equipped the candidates with practical rehabilitation strategies that they implemented into clinical practice. Conclusion: This pragmatic solution to educating redeployed staff during a pandemic increased candidates' confidence in the rehabilitation of critically ill patients. There was also evidence of modifications to clinical care utilising learning from the course that subjectively facilitated holistic and humanised rehabilitation, combined with the importance of recognising the humanity, of those working in ICU settings themselves. Whilst these data are self-reported, we believe that this work demonstrates the real-term benefits of remote, scalable and rapid educational delivery.

Cross-cultural adaptation and inter-rater reliability of the Swedish version of the Chelsea critical care assessment tool (CPAX-Swe) in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: To translate and culturally adapt the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool into Swedish and to test the inter-rater reliability of the Swedish version in critically ill patients. DESIGN: This is an observational study. METHODS: Translation and cross-cultural adaptation was performed in line with international recommendations, including forward and backward translation and expert round table discussions. The inter-rater reliability of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool - Swedish was then explored in 50 critically ill adult patients, pragmatically recruited, in a University Hospital clinical setting. Reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient for aggregated scores and quadratic weighted Cohen's kappa analysis for individual items. RESULTS: The expert round table discussion group agreed that the translation was a satisfactory equivalent to the original version and applicable for use within the clinical setting. Reliability of aggregated scores and individual items were very good (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.97 and quadric weighted kappa values ranging from 0.88 to 0.98). The measurement error for aggregated scores was low, with a standard error of measurement of 1.79, smallest detectable change of 4.95, and limits of agreement of 5.20 and -4.76. The percentage agreement for individual items ranged from 64% to 88%. CONCLUSION: The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool - Swedish was found applicable and appropriate for assessment of functioning in critically ill patients in an acute setting in Sweden, and it displayed high inter-rater reliability. This implies that the Swedish version can be used as assessment tool within intensive care and acute wards in Sweden.Implications for rehabilitationThere is a lack of validated instruments to test the functional status of critically ill patients in Sweden.The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool is validated and reliable in English.The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool - Swedish is considered reliable for use by physiotherapist in intensive care settings in Sweden.The Swedish version is feasible for use within clinical practice due to its simplicity and strong clinical relevance.

Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool into Danish.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to validate the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx) in Danish, including translation, cross-cultural adaptation and evaluation of clinemetric properties. METHOD: International recommendations for translation and cross-cultural adaptation of outcome measures were followed. Physiotherapists with ICU experience investigated the clinemetric properties of the Danish CPAx version among 30 critically ill patients at three different ICUs. Furthermore, a focus group interview was carried out to examine cross-cultural adaptation of the CPAx tool. RESULTS: Translation and pre-test of the Danish version of CPAx resulted in a measurement tool with good clinemetric properties. Few adaptations were made with consideration of comparability between the Danish and the English version. The author of the original version of CPAx, Eve Corner, approved the Danish translation. CONCLUSION: The Danish version of the CPAx seems to be an appropriate measurement instrument for evaluation of physical function in ICU patients. This study is the first step toward a validation of a Danish version of the CPAx tool. However, further research is needed to investigate reliability and responsiveness among patients in the ICU.

Qualitative, grounded theory exploration of patients' experience of early mobilisation, rehabilitation and recovery after critical illness.

RATIONALE: Physical rehabilitation (encompassing early mobilisation) of the critically ill patient is recognised best practice; however, further work is needed to explore the patients' experience of rehabilitation qualitatively; a better understanding may facilitate implementation of early rehabilitation and elucidate the journey of survivorship. OBJECTIVES: To explore patient experience of physical rehabilitation from critical illness during and after a stay on intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: Exploratory grounded theory study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Adult medical/surgical ICU of a London teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample of ICU survivors with intensive care unit acquired weakness (ICUAW) and an ICU length of stay of >72 hours. ANALYSIS: Data analysis followed a four-stage constant comparison technique: open coding, axial coding, selective coding and model development, with the aim of reaching thematic saturation. Peer debriefing and triangulation through a patient support group were carried out to ensure credibility. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen people were interviewed (with four relatives in attendance). The early rehabilitation period was characterised by episodic memory loss, hallucinations, weakness and fatigue, making early rehabilitation arduous and difficult to recall. Participants craved a paternalised approach to care in the early days of ICU.The central idea that emerged from this study was recalibration of the self. This is driven by a lost sense of self, with loss of autonomy and competence; dehumanised elements of care may contribute to this. Participants described a fractured life narrative due to episodic memory loss, meaning that patients were shocked on awakening from sedation by the discrepancy between their physical form and cognitive representation of themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery from ICUAW is a complex process that often begins with survivors exploring and adapting to a new body, followed by a period of recovering autonomy. Rehabilitation plays a key role in this recalibration period, helping survivors to reconstruct a desirable future.

eLearning to facilitate the education and implementation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment: a novel measure of function in critical illness.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of eLearning in the widespread standardised teaching, distribution and implementation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment (CPAx) tool-a validated tool to assess physical function in critically ill patients. DESIGN: Prospective educational study. An eLearning module was developed through a conceptual framework, using the four-stage technique for skills teaching to teach clinicians how to use the CPAx. Example and test video case studies of CPAx assessments were embedded within the module. The CPAx scores for the test case studies and demographic data were recorded in a secure area of the website. Data were analysed for inter-rater reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to see if an eLearning educational package facilitated consistent use of the tool. A utility and content validity questionnaire was distributed after 1 year to eLearning module registrants (n=971). This was to evaluate uptake of the CPAx in clinical practice and content validity of the CPAx from the perspective of clinical users. SETTING: The module was distributed for use via professional forums (n=2) and direct contacts (n=95). PARTICIPANTS: Critical care clinicians. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: ICC of the test case studies. RESULTS: Between July and October 2014, 421 candidates from 15 countries registered for the eLearning module. The ICC for case one was 0.996 (95% CI 0.990 to 0.999; n=207). The ICC for case two was 0.988 (0.996 to 1.000; n=184). The CPAx has a strong total scale content validity index (s-CVI) of 0.94 and is well used. CONCLUSIONS: eLearning is a useful and reliable way of teaching psychomotor skills, such as the CPAx. The CPAx is a well-used measure with high content validity rated by clinicians.

The responsiveness of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool in measuring functional recovery in the burns critical care population: an observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Severe burn leads to a state of hypercatabolism, resulting in rapid muscle loss and long-term disability. As survival rates from severe burn are improving, early rehabilitation is essential to facilitate functional recovery. However, there is no way of measuring the degree of disability in the acute stages, and hence, no marker of functional recovery. This hampers both communication and research into interventions to improve functional outcomes. The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) is a simple objective measure of function, designed and validated in the general Intensive Care Unit (ICU) cohort. The aim of this study was to test the responsiveness of the CPAx in the burns ICU (BICU) cohort and validate its use. METHODS: Observational study of 52 BICU patients admitted for over 48h. All patients were assessed on the CPAx retrospectively for pre-admission, and prospectively at ICU admission, ICU discharge (or final ICU assessment for non-survivors) and hospital discharge. Analysis of variance, post hoc between group differences in median CPAx score, and floor and ceiling effect (i.e. the percentage of patients scoring full marks (50), or zero) for the four time points were completed. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was estimated as half of the standard deviation of the CPAx score at ICU discharge. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were included in the final analysis; mean age was 47.1 years (SD 21.2), 63.3% were male, with a median burn total body surface area (TBSA) of 30% (IQR 11.3-48.8). There was a significant difference in the analysis of variance in median CPAx scores at all four time points (p<.001). In survivors, the differences in CPAx scores post hoc were significant for all time points (p<.05), aside from ICU discharge and hospital discharge. The CPAx MCID for BICU patients was six. Twenty-three (86.7%) patients scored full marks or zero on the CPAx pre-admission. For survivors, no patients scored full marks or zero on the CPAx at ICU and hospital discharge. On ICU admission 66.7% (n=20) scored zero on the CPAx and no patients scored 50. CONCLUSIONS: The CPAx score appears to be able to detect improvements in physical function as patients recover from acute severe burn. It has a limited floor and ceiling effect in the acute setting and a change in CPAx score of 6 represents clinically important progress. Further work is required in a larger cohort.

An evaluation of factors associated with completion and benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) is an important treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but it is not established whether any baseline parameter can predict response or compliance. AIM: To identify whether baseline measures can predict who will complete the programme and who will achieve a clinically significant benefit from a Minimum Clinical Important Difference (MCID) in terms of exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from patients with COPD at their baseline assessment for an outpatient PR programme in one of eight centres across London. 'Completion' was defined as attending at least 75% of the designated PR visits and return for the follow-up evaluation. The MCID for outcome measures was based on published data. RESULTS: 787 outpatients with COPD (68.1±10.5 years old; 49.6% males) were included. Patients who completed PR (n=449, 57.1%) were significantly older with less severe airflow obstruction, lower anxiety and depression scores, less dyspnoea and better HRQoL. Only baseline CAT score (OR=0.925; 95% CI 0.879 to 0.974; p=0.003) was retained in multivariate analysis. Patients with the lowest baseline walking distance were most likely to achieve the MCID for exercise capacity. No baseline variable could independently predict achievement of an MCID in HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with better HRQoL are more likely to complete PR while worse baseline exercise performance makes the achievement of a positive MCID in exercise capacity more likely. However, no baseline parameter could predict who would benefit the most in terms of HRQoL.

Construct validity of the Chelsea critical care physical assessment tool: an observational study of recovery from critical illness.

INTRODUCTION: Intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) is common in survivors of critical illness, resulting in global weakness and functional deficit. Although ICU-AW is well described subjectively in the literature, the value of objective measures has yet to be established. This project aimed to evaluate the construct validity of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) by analyzing the association between CPAx scores and hospital-discharge location, as a measure of functional outcome. METHODS: The CPAx was integrated into practice as a service-improvement initiative in an 11-bed intensive care unit (ICU). For patients admitted for more than 48 hours, between 10 May 2010 and 13 November 2013, the last CPAx score within 24 hours of step down from the ICU or death was recorded (n = 499). At hospital discharge, patients were separated into seven categories, based on continued rehabilitation and care needs. Descriptive statistics were used to explore the association between ICU discharge CPAx score and hospital-discharge location. RESULTS: Of the 499 patients, 171 (34.3%) returned home with no ongoing rehabilitation or care input; 131 (26.2%) required community support; 28 (5.6%) went to inpatient rehabilitation for <6 weeks; and 25 (5.0%) went to inpatient rehabilitation for >6 weeks; 27 (5.4%) required nursing home level of care; 80 (16.0%) died in the ICU, and 37 (7.4%) died in hospital. A significant difference was found in the median CPAx score between groups (P < 0.0001). Four patients (0.8%) scored full marks (50) on the CPAx, all of whom went home with no ongoing needs; 16 patients (3.2%) scored 0 on the CPAx, all of whom died within 24 hours. A 0.8% ceiling effect and a 3.2% floor effect of the CPAx is found in the ICU. Compliance with completion of the CPAx stabilized at 78% of all ICU admissions. CONCLUSION: The CPAx score at ICU discharge has displayed construct validity by crudely discriminating between groups with different functional needs at hospital discharge. The CPAx has a limited floor and ceiling effect in survivors of critical illness. A significant proportion of patients had a requirement for postdischarge care and rehabilitation.

Early identification of patients at risk of long-term critical illness-associated physical disability: is it possible?

ICU-acquired weakness can hinder and determine the course of recovery from critical illness, leading to life-changing disability. Risk factors include multiorgan failure and prolonged bed rest; however, no prognostic model or screening tool for new-onset disability has been established to date. With no way of targeting the at-risk population, it is difficult to demonstrate the benefit of rehabilitation interventions in research and prioritize resources clinically. In a recent issue of Critical Care, Schandl and colleagues aimed to establish a predictive screening tool for new-onset disability using 23 possible predictors. They found that using the following risk factors--low educational level, fractures, reduced core stability and length of ICU stay over 2 days--they were able to develop a risk score predictive of disability at 2 months after hospital discharge. These investigators propose that this will help to identify patients requiring follow-up and may increase the power to detect change in interventional studies. Whilst this is promising work, further validation is essential: firstly, to make it a clinically workable tool in terms of appropriate 'cut offs'; secondly, to ensure that it is transferable in different socio-economic environments; and finally, to make sure that those identified as 'at risk' are those that would benefit the most from targeted intervention.