Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit during the first and second waves of the pandemic in Brazil: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to intensive care units during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this retrospective single-center cohort study, data were retrieved from the Epimed Monitor System; all adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit between March 4, 2020, and October 1, 2021, were included in the study. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit of a quaternary private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, during the first (May 1, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and second (March 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021) waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In total, 1,427 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit during the first (421 patients) and second (1,006 patients) waves. Compared with the first wave group [median (IQR)], the second wave group was younger [57 (46-70) versus 67 (52-80) years; p<0.001], had a lower SAPS 3 Score [45 (42-52) versus 49 (43-57); p<0.001], lower SOFA Score on intensive care unit admission [3 (1-6) versus 4 (2-6); p=0.018], lower Charlson Comorbidity Index [0 (0-1) versus 1 (0-2); p<0.001], and were less frequently frail (10.4% versus 18.1%; p<0.001). The second wave group used more noninvasive ventilation (81.3% versus 53.4%; p<0.001) and high-flow nasal cannula (63.2% versus 23.0%; p<0.001) during their intensive care unit stay. The intensive care unit (11.3% versus 10.5%; p=0.696) and in-hospital mortality (12.3% versus 12.1%; p=0.998) rates did not differ between both waves. CONCLUSION: In the first and second waves, patients with severe COVID-19 exhibited similar mortality rates and need for invasive organ support, despite the second wave group being younger and less severely ill at the time of intensive care unit admission.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit during the first and second waves of the pandemic in Brazil: a single-center retrospective cohort study

ABSTRACT Objective To describe and compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to intensive care units during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods In this retrospective single-center cohort study, data were retrieved from the Epimed Monitor System; all adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit between March 4, 2020, and October 1, 2021, were included in the study. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit of a quaternary private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, during the first (May 1, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and second (March 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021) waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results In total, 1,427 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit during the first (421 patients) and second (1,006 patients) waves. Compared with the first wave group [median (IQR)], the second wave group was younger [57 (46-70) versus 67 (52-80) years; p<0.001], had a lower SAPS 3 Score [45 (42-52) versus 49 (43-57); p<0.001], lower SOFA Score on intensive care unit admission [3 (1-6) versus 4 (2-6); p=0.018], lower Charlson Comorbidity Index [0 (0-1) versus 1 (0-2); p<0.001], and were less frequently frail (10.4% versus 18.1%; p<0.001). The second wave group used more noninvasive ventilation (81.3% versus 53.4%; p<0.001) and high-flow nasal cannula (63.2% versus 23.0%; p<0.001) during their intensive care unit stay. The intensive care unit (11.3% versus 10.5%; p=0.696) and in-hospital mortality (12.3% versus 12.1%; p=0.998) rates did not differ between both waves. Conclusion In the first and second waves, patients with severe COVID-19 exhibited similar mortality rates and need for invasive organ support, despite the second wave group being younger and less severely ill at the time of intensive care unit admission.

Closed-loop oxygen control for patients with hypoxaemia during hospitalisation: a living systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Oxygen is the most common drug used in critical care patients to correct episodes of hypoxaemia. The adoption of new technologies in clinical practice, such as closed-loop systems for an automatic oxygen titration, may improve outcomes and reduce the healthcare professionals' workload at the bedside; however, certainty of the evidence regarding the safety and benefits still remains low. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of the closed-loop oxygen control for patients with hypoxaemia during the hospitalisation period by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL and LOVE evidence databases will be searched. Randomised controlled trials and cross-over studies investigating the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome) framework will be included. The primary outcomes will be the time in the peripheral oxygen saturation target. Secondary outcomes will include time for oxygen weaning time; length of stay; costs; adverse events; mortality; healthcare professionals' workload, and percentage of time with hypoxia and hyperoxia. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data and perform quality assessment of included studies. The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to assess risk of bias. The RevMan V.5.4 software will be used for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity will be analysed using I2 statistics. Mean difference or standardised mean difference with 95% CI and p value will be used to calculate treatment effect for outcome variables. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because this systematic review and meta-analysis is based on previously published data. Final results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences and events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022306033.

Telerehabilitation improves physical function and reduces dyspnoea in people with COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 conditions: a systematic review.

QUESTION: How effective and safe is telerehabilitation for people with COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 conditions? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised trials. PARTICIPANTS: People with COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 conditions. INTERVENTION: Any type of telerehabilitation. OUTCOME MEASURES: Satisfaction, quality of life, adverse events, adherence to telerehabilitation, dyspnoea, functional performance, readmissions, mortality, pulmonary function and level of independence. RESULTS: Database searches retrieved 2,962 records, of which six trials with 323 participants were included in the review. Breathing exercises delivered via telerehabilitation improved 6-minute walk distance (MD 101 m, 95% CI 61 to 141; two studies), 30-second sit-to-stand test performance (MD 2.2 repetitions, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.8; two studies), Multidimensional Dyspnoea-12 questionnaire scores (MD -6, 95% CI -7 to -5; two studies) and perceived effort on the 0-to-10 Borg scale (MD -2.8, 95% CI -3.3 to -2.3; two studies), with low certainty of evidence. Exercise delivered via telerehabilitation improved 6-minute walk distance (MD 62 m, 95% CI 42 to 82, four studies), 30-second sit-to-stand test performance (MD 2.0 repetitions, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.7; two studies) and Multidimensional Dyspnoea-12 scores (MD -1.8, 95% CI -2.5 to -1.1; one study), with low certainty of evidence. Adverse events were almost all mild or moderate and occurred with similar frequency in the telerehabilitation group (median 0 per participant, IQR 0 to 2.75) as in the control group (median 0 per participant, IQR 0 to 2); Hodges-Lehmann median difference 0 (95% CI 0 to 0), with low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSION: Telerehabilitation may improve functional capacity, dyspnoea, performance and physical components of quality of life and does not substantially increase adverse events. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021271049.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit during the first year of the pandemic in Brazil: a single center retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical characteristics, resource use, outcomes, and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit. METHODS: Retrospective single-center cohort study conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. All consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to the intensive care unit, between March 4, 2020 and February 28, 2021 were included in this study. Patients were categorized between survivors and non-survivors according to hospital discharge. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,296 patients [median (interquartile range) age: 66 (53-77) years] with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit. Out of those, 170 (13.6%) died at hospital (non-survivors) and 1,078 (86.4%) were discharged (survivors). Compared to survivors, non-survivors were older [80 (70-88) versus 63 (50-74) years; p<0.001], had a higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 [59 (54-66) versus 47 (42-53) points; p<0.001], and presented comorbidities more frequently. During the intensive care unit stay, 56.6% of patients received noninvasive ventilation, 32.9% received mechanical ventilation, 31.3% used high flow nasal cannula, 11.7% received renal replacement therapy, and 1.5% used extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality included age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, need for mechanical ventilation, high flow nasal cannula, renal replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit exhibited a considerable morbidity and mortality, demanding substantial organ support, and prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stay.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit during the first year of the pandemic in Brazil: a single center retrospective cohort study / Características clínicas e desfechos de pacientes com COVID-19 admitidos em unidade de terapia intensiva durante o primeiro ano de pandemia no Brasil: um estudo de coorte retrospectivo em centro único

ABSTRACT Objective: To describe clinical characteristics, resource use, outcomes, and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit. Methods: Retrospective single-center cohort study conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. All consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to the intensive care unit, between March 4, 2020 and February 28, 2021 were included in this study. Patients were categorized between survivors and non-survivors according to hospital discharge. Results: During the study period, 1,296 patients [median (interquartile range) age: 66 (53-77) years] with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit. Out of those, 170 (13.6%) died at hospital (non-survivors) and 1,078 (86.4%) were discharged (survivors). Compared to survivors, non-survivors were older [80 (70-88) versus 63 (50-74) years; p<0.001], had a higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 [59 (54-66) versus 47 (42-53) points; p<0.001], and presented comorbidities more frequently. During the intensive care unit stay, 56.6% of patients received noninvasive ventilation, 32.9% received mechanical ventilation, 31.3% used high flow nasal cannula, 11.7% received renal replacement therapy, and 1.5% used extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality included age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, need for mechanical ventilation, high flow nasal cannula, renal replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Conclusion: Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit exhibited a considerable morbidity and mortality, demanding substantial organ support, and prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stay.

RESUMO Objetivo: Descrever características clínicas, uso de recursos e desfechos e identificar preditores de mortalidade intra-hospitalar de pacientes com COVID-19 admitidos na unidade de terapia intensiva. Métodos: Estudo de coorte retrospectivo, em centro único, realizado em um hospital privado localizado em São Paulo (SP). Pacientes adultos (≥18 anos) admitidos consecutivamente na unidade de terapia intensiva, entre 4 de março de 2020 a 28 de fevereiro de 2021, foram incluídos neste estudo. Os pacientes foram classificados como sobreviventes e não sobreviventes, de acordo com a alta hospitalar. Resultados: Durante o período do estudo, 1.296 pacientes [mediana (intervalo interquartil) de idade: 66 (53-77) anos] com COVID-19 foram admitidos na unidade de terapia intensiva. Destes, 170 (13,6%) pacientes morreram no hospital (não sobreviventes), e 1.078 (86,4%) receberam alta hospitalar (sobreviventes). Comparados aos sobreviventes, os não sobreviventes eram mais idosos [80 (70-88) versus 63 (50-74) anos; p<0,001], apresentavam pontuação mais alta no sistema prognóstico Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 [59 (54-66) versus 47 (42-53); pontos p<0,001] e tinham mais comorbidades. Durante a internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, 56,6% dos pacientes usaram ventilação não invasiva, 32,9% usaram ventilação mecânica invasiva, 31,3% usaram cateter nasal de alto fluxo, 11,7% foram submetidos à terapia renal substitutiva, e 1,5% usou oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea. Os preditores independentes de mortalidade intra-hospitalar foram idade, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Índice de Comorbidade de Charlson, necessidade de ventilação mecânica, uso de cateter nasal de alto fluxo, uso de terapia renal substitutiva e suporte por oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea. Conclusão: Pacientes com quadros graves da COVID-19 admitidos na unidade de terapia intensiva apresentaram considerável mortalidade e morbidade, com alta demanda de terapia de suporte e internação prolongada em unidade de terapia intensiva e hospitalar.

Intensive support recommendations for critically-ill patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.

In December 2019, a series of patients with severe pneumonia were identified in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, who progressed to severe acute respiratory syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Subsequently, COVID-19 was attributed to a new betacoronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Approximately 20% of patients diagnosed as COVID-19 develop severe forms of the disease, including acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, severe acute respiratory syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute renal failure and require intensive care. There is no randomized controlled clinical trial addressing potential therapies for patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection at the time of publishing these treatment recommendations. Therefore, these recommendations are based predominantly on the opinion of experts (level C of recommendation).

Intensive support recommendations for critically-ill patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection / Recomendações de suporte intensivo para pacientes graves com infecção suspeita ou confirmada pela COVID-19

ABSTRACT In December 2019, a series of patients with severe pneumonia were identified in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, who progressed to severe acute respiratory syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Subsequently, COVID-19 was attributed to a new betacoronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Approximately 20% of patients diagnosed as COVID-19 develop severe forms of the disease, including acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, severe acute respiratory syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute renal failure and require intensive care. There is no randomized controlled clinical trial addressing potential therapies for patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection at the time of publishing these treatment recommendations. Therefore, these recommendations are based predominantly on the opinion of experts (level C of recommendation).

RESUMO Em dezembro de 2019, uma série de pacientes com pneumonia grave foi identificada em Wuhan, província de Hubei, na China. Esses pacientes evoluíram para síndrome respiratória aguda grave e síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo. Posteriormente, a COVID-19 foi atribuída a um novo betacoronavírus, o coronavírus da síndrome respiratória aguda grave 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Cerca de 20% dos pacientes com diagnóstico de COVID-19 desenvolvem formas graves da doença, incluindo insuficiência respiratória aguda hipoxêmica, síndrome respiratória aguda grave, síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo e insuficiência renal aguda e requerem admissão em unidade de terapia intensiva. Não há nenhum ensaio clínico randomizado controlado que avalie potenciais tratamentos para pacientes com infecção confirmada pela COVID-19 no momento da publicação destas recomendações de tratamento. Dessa forma, essas recomendações são baseadas predominantemente na opinião de especialistas (grau de recomendação de nível C).

Bronchial hygiene techniques in patients on mechanical ventilation: what are used and why?

Objective To analyze and describe the maneuvers most commonly used in clinical practice by physical therapists and the reasons for choosing them. Methods A prospective multicenter study using a questionnaire. The sample consisted of physical therapists from five hospitals (three private hospitals, a teaching hospital and a public hospital). Results A total of 185 questionnaires were filled in. Most professionals had graduated 6 to 10 years before and over had over 10 years of intensive care unit experience. The most often used maneuvers were vibrocompression, hyperinflation, postural drainage, tracheal suction and motor mobilization. The most frequent reason for choosing these maneuvers was "I notice they are more efficient in clinical practice." Conclusion Physical therapy is mostly based on individual experience acquired in the clinical practice, and not on the scientific literature.

Bronchial hygiene techniques in patients on mechanical ventilation: what are used and why? / Manobras de higiene brônquica em pacientes em ventilação mecânica: quais e por que são usadas?

ABSTRACT Objective To analyze and describe the maneuvers most commonly used in clinical practice by physical therapists and the reasons for choosing them. Methods A prospective multicenter study using a questionnaire. The sample consisted of physical therapists from five hospitals (three private hospitals, a teaching hospital and a public hospital). Results A total of 185 questionnaires were filled in. Most professionals had graduated 6 to 10 years before and over had over 10 years of intensive care unit experience. The most often used maneuvers were vibrocompression, hyperinflation, postural drainage, tracheal suction and motor mobilization. The most frequent reason for choosing these maneuvers was "I notice they are more efficient in clinical practice." Conclusion Physical therapy is mostly based on individual experience acquired in the clinical practice, and not on the scientific literature.

RESUMO Objetivo Analisar e descrever as manobras mais usadas na prática clínica pelos fisioterapeutas e os motivos para esta escolha. Métodos Estudo prospectivo e multicêntrico, realizado por meio de um questionário. A amostra foi composta por colaboradores fisioterapeutas de cinco hospitais, sendo três particulares, um hospital escola e um público. Resultados Foram preenchidos 185 questionários. A maioria dos profissionais possuía de 6 a 10 anos de formação e mais de 10 anos de experiência em unidades de terapia intensiva. As manobras mais assinaladas foram: vibrocompressão, hiperinsuflação, drenagem postural, aspiração traqueal e mobilização motora. O motivo de escolha prevalente destas manobras foi "Eu vejo ser mais eficaz na prática clínica". Conclusão A fisioterapia baseia-se na prática clínica adquirida ao longo da experiência individual, não sendo fomentada pela literatura científica.

Impact of respiratory therapy in vital capacity and functionality of patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the vital capacity after two chest therapy techniques in patients undergoing abdominal surgical. METHODS: A prospective randomized study carried out with patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit after abdominal surgery. We checked vital capacity, muscular strength using the Medical Research Council scale, and functionality with the Functional Independence Measure the first time the patient was breathing spontaneously (D1), and also upon discharge from the Intensive Care Unit (Ddis). Between D1 and Ddis, respiratory therapy was carried out according to the randomized group. RESULTS: We included 38 patients, 20 randomized to Positive Intermittent Pressure Group and 18 to Volumetric Incentive Spirometer Group. There was no significant gain related to vital capacity of D1 and Ddis of Positive Intermittent Pressure Group (mean 1,410mL±547.2 versus 1,809mL±692.3; p=0.979), as in the Volumetric Incentive Spirometer Group (1,408.3mL±419.1 versus 1,838.8mL±621.3; p=0.889). We observed a significant improvement in vital capacity in D1 (p<0.001) and Ddis (p<0.001) and in the Functional Independence Measure (p<0.001) after respiratory therapy. The vital capacity improvement was not associated with gain of muscle strength. CONCLUSION: Chest therapy, with positive pressure and volumetric incentive spirometer, was effective in improving vital capacity of patients submitted to abdominal surgery. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a capacidade vital comparando duas técnicas de fisioterapia respiratória em pacientes submetidos à cirurgia abdominal. MÉTODOS: Estudo prospectivo e randomizado realizado com pacientes admitidos em Unidade de Terapia Intensiva após cirurgia abdominal. Verificamos a capacidade vital, a força muscular por meio da escala do Medical Research Council e funcionalidade pela Medida de Independência Funcional no primeiro momento em que o paciente encontrava-se em respiração espontânea (D1) e na alta da Unidade de Terapia Intensiva (Dalta). Entre D1 e Dalta, foi realizada a fisioterapia respiratória, conforme o grupo randomizado. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos 38 pacientes, sendo 20 randomizados para Grupo Pressão Positiva Intermitente e 18 para o Grupo Incentivador Inspiratório a Volume. A capacidade vital entre o D1 e Dalta do Grupo Pressão Positiva Intermitente não teve ganho significativo (média de 1.410mL±547,2 versus 1.809mL±692,3; p=0,979), assim como no Grupo Incentivador Inspiratório a Volume (1.408,3mL±419,1 versus 1.838,8mL±621,3; p=0,889). Houve melhora significativa da capacidade vital no D1 (p<0,001) e na Dalta (p<0,001) e da Medida de Independência Funcional (p<0,001) após a fisioterapia respiratória. A melhora da capacidade vital não apresentou relação com o ganho da força muscular. CONCLUSÃO: A fisioterapia respiratória, por meio de pressão positiva ou de incentivador inspiratório a volume, foi eficaz na melhora da capacidade vital em pacientes submetidos à cirurgia abdominal.

Impact of respiratory therapy in vital capacity and functionality of patients undergoing abdominal surgery / Impacto da fisioterapia respiratória na capacidade vital e na funcionalidade de pacientes submetidos à cirurgia abdominal

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the vital capacity after two chest therapy techniques in patients undergoing abdominal surgical. Methods A prospective randomized study carried out with patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit after abdominal surgery. We checked vital capacity, muscular strength using the Medical Research Council scale, and functionality with the Functional Independence Measure the first time the patient was breathing spontaneously (D1), and also upon discharge from the Intensive Care Unit (Ddis). Between D1 and Ddis, respiratory therapy was carried out according to the randomized group. Results We included 38 patients, 20 randomized to Positive Intermittent Pressure Group and 18 to Volumetric Incentive Spirometer Group. There was no significant gain related to vital capacity of D1 and Ddis of Positive Intermittent Pressure Group (mean 1,410mL±547.2 versus 1,809mL±692.3; p=0.979), as in the Volumetric Incentive Spirometer Group (1,408.3mL±419.1 versus 1,838.8mL±621.3; p=0.889). We observed a significant improvement in vital capacity in D1 (p<0.001) and Ddis (p<0.001) and in the Functional Independence Measure (p<0.001) after respiratory therapy. The vital capacity improvement was not associated with gain of muscle strength. Conclusion Chest therapy, with positive pressure and volumetric incentive spirometer, was effective in improving vital capacity of patients submitted to abdominal surgery.

RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar a capacidade vital comparando duas técnicas de fisioterapia respiratória em pacientes submetidos à cirurgia abdominal. Métodos Estudo prospectivo e randomizado realizado com pacientes admitidos em Unidade de Terapia Intensiva após cirurgia abdominal. Verificamos a capacidade vital, a força muscular por meio da escala do Medical Research Council e funcionalidade pela Medida de Independência Funcional no primeiro momento em que o paciente encontrava-se em respiração espontânea (D1) e na alta da Unidade de Terapia Intensiva (Dalta). Entre D1 e Dalta, foi realizada a fisioterapia respiratória, conforme o grupo randomizado. Resultados Foram incluídos 38 pacientes, sendo 20 randomizados para Grupo Pressão Positiva Intermitente e 18 para o Grupo Incentivador Inspiratório a Volume. A capacidade vital entre o D1 e Dalta do Grupo Pressão Positiva Intermitente não teve ganho significativo (média de 1.410mL±547,2 versus 1.809mL±692,3; p=0,979), assim como no Grupo Incentivador Inspiratório a Volume (1.408,3mL±419,1 versus 1.838,8mL±621,3; p=0,889). Houve melhora significativa da capacidade vital no D1 (p<0,001) e na Dalta (p<0,001) e da Medida de Independência Funcional (p<0,001) após a fisioterapia respiratória. A melhora da capacidade vital não apresentou relação com o ganho da força muscular. Conclusão A fisioterapia respiratória, por meio de pressão positiva ou de incentivador inspiratório a volume, foi eficaz na melhora da capacidade vital em pacientes submetidos à cirurgia abdominal.

Design of an instrument to measure the quality of care in Physical Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To design an instrument composed of domains that would demonstrate physical therapy activities and generate a consistent index to represent the quality of care in physical therapy. METHODS: The methodology Lean Six Sigma was used to design the tool. The discussion involved seven different management groups staff. By means of brainstorming and Cause & Effect Matrix, we set up the process map. RESULTS: Five requirements composed the quality of care index in physical therapy, after application of the tool called Cause & Effect Matrix. The following requirements were assessed: physical therapist performance, care outcome indicator, adherence to physical therapy protocols, measure whether the prognosis and treatment outcome was achieved and Infrastructure. CONCLUSION: The proposed design allowed evaluating several items related to physical therapy service, enabling customization, reproducibility and benchmarking with other organizations. For management, this index provides the opportunity to identify areas for improvement and the strengths of the team and process of physical therapy care.