Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2023 Jun 1;27(1):217.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04508-4.

Feasibility of mobilisation in ICU: a multi-centre point prevalence study of mobility practices in the UK

Claire Black  1 , Helen Sanger  2 , Ceri Battle  3 , Allaina Eden  4 , Evelyn Corner  5
Affiliations
Observational Study

Feasibility of mobilisation in ICU: a multi-centre point prevalence study of mobility practices in the UK

Claire Black et al. Crit Care. .

Abstract

Background: Early mobilisation in critical care is recommended within clinical guidance; however, mobilisation prevalence across the UK is unknown. The study aimed to determine the proportion of patients mobilised out of bed within 48-72 h, to describe their physiological status, and to compare this to published consensus safety recommendations for out-of-bed activity.

Methods: A UK cross-sectional, multi-centre, observational study of adult critical care mobility practices was conducted. Demographic, physiological and organ support data, mobility level, and rationale for not mobilising out of bed, were collected for all patients on 3rd March 2022. Patients were categorised as: Group 1-mobilised ICU Mobility Scale (IMS) ≥ 3; Group 2-not-mobilised IMS < 3 with physiological reasons; or Group 3-not-mobilised IMS < 3 with non-physiological barriers to mobilisation. Rationale for the decision to not mobilise was collected qualitatively. Regression analysis was used to compare the physiological parameters of Group 1 (mobilised) versus Group 2 (not-mobilised with physiological reasons). Patients were stratified as 'low-risk', 'potential-risk' or 'high-risk' using published risk of adverse event ratings.

Results: Data were collected for 960 patients across 84 UK critical care units. Of these 393 (41%) mobilised, 416 (43%) were not-mobilised due to physiological reasons and 151 (16%) were not mobilised with non-physiological reasons. A total of 371 patients had been admitted for ≤ 3 days, of whom 180 (48%) were mobilised, 140 (38%) were not mobilised with physiological reasons, and 51 (14%) were not mobilised with non-physiological reasons. Of the 809 without non-physiological barriers to mobilisation, 367 (45%) had a low risk of adverse event rating and 120 (15%) a potential risk, of whom 309 (84%) and 78 (65%) mobilised, respectively. Mobility was associated with a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 1 to + 1, lower doses of vasoactive agents, a lower inspired oxygen requirement.

Conclusion: Although only 40% of patients mobilised out of bed, 89% of those defined 'low-risk' did so. There is significant overlap in physiological parameters for mobilisation versus non-mobilisation groups, suggesting a comprehensive physiological assessment is vital in decision making rather than relying on arbitrary time points.

Clinical trials registration: NCT05281705 Registered March 16, 2022. Retrospectively registered.

Keywords: Critical care; Critical illness; Intensive care unit; Mobilisation; Rehabilitation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No personal financial or personal conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
ICU Mobility Scale (all patients) on the study day
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Parameters with statistically different values between mobilised, not-mobilised and non-physiological barriers to mobilisation
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Alluvial plot to illustrate the calculated risk rating for each organ system and the mobility status
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
VIS vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS) rating and whether out-of-bed mobility was achieved
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. McCarthy B, Casey D, Devane D, Murphy K, Murphy E, Lacasse Y. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(2):CD003793. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, Nigos C, Pawlik AJ, Esbrook CL, et al. Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9678):1874–1882. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60658-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Friedrich O, Reid MB, Van den Berghe G, Vanhorebeek I, Hermans G, Rich MM, et al. The sick and the weak: neuropathies/myopathies in the critically ill. Physiol Rev. 2015;95(3):1025–1109. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00028.2014. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Puthucheary ZA, Rawal J, McPhail M, Connolly B, Ratnayake G, Chan P, et al. Acute skeletal muscle wasting in critical illness. JAMA. 2013;310(15):1591–1600. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.278481. - DOI - PubMed
    1. NICE clinical guideline 83: rehabilitation following critical illness; 2009.

Publication types

Associated data