Early Mobility in the Intensive Care Unit

Early mobilization therapy issue became an area of concern after researchers discovered the negative consequences of bed rest following sickness or trauma. These consequences can be versatile and dangerous for a patient’s health condition. The most prominent of them are cardiovascular deconditioning, increased risk of pressure ulcer development, muscle weakness and atrophy, neurological dysfunction. Thus, the given reasons are enough to support the need for developing an EBP project in this area (Patel, Pohlman, Hall, & Kress, 2014).

The nursing issue that has been chosen is the early mobility in the intensive care unit (ICU). Particularly, the advantages and the disadvantages of early mobility therapy compared to non-early mobility therapy for patients who are in intensive care will be analyzed. The reason for choosing this particular topic is that it is a significantly important issue in nursing practice. However, the amount of evidence that has studied the early mobilization of seriously ill patients is rather small. A few randomized and controlled researches have been conducted including only several hundred patients which significantly limits the strength of the evidence.

Therefore, since the early mobilization therapy is considered safe and feasible, it is important to pay more attention to it (Schaller et al., 2016). Thus, this assignment consists of the following sections: Introduction, The Connection between FNP and Early Mobility Therapy, Nursing Issue, PICO Question, Research Literature Support, Theoretical Framework, and Change Model, Research Approach and Design, Sampling Method, Conclusion, and References.

The Connection between FNP and Early Mobility Therapy

The specialty track that has been chosen is the Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP). FNPs are advanced practice nurses who work autonomously or in cooperation with other healthcare professionals to provide family-focused care. They provide a wide range of healthcare services for particular family units on a long-term basis. FNPs’ objective is to promote health, prevent diseases, treat patients, and counsel them across the lifespan.

The role of an FNP in early mobility therapy in the ICU is significant. FNPs look after patients when they are in intensive care. In this regard, they can help implement early mobility therapy during the treatment of their patients (Bernhardt, 2017). Thus, depending on the type of illness or injury, FNPs can determine whether to use early or non-early mobility therapy on their patients. Although in general, early mobility therapy helps prevent negative consequences caused by bed rest, in certain cases, it can lead to the relapse of a disease or the opening of an undertreated wound. Therefore, FNPs’ purpose is to decide whether this therapy will harm a patient in a particular case or improve patient’s health, accelerate the healing process, and help avoid pernicious consequences connected with the non-early mobility therapy (Clark, Lowman, Griffin, Matthews, & Reiff, 2013).

Nursing Issue

The nursing issue on which this project is focused is the early mobility program in the ICU. There has recently been an increase in the movement to begin research that focuses on the physical therapy utilization within the ICU establishment and the outcomes of the early intervention program with patients within this establishment. Progressive or early mobilization includes a system of movements that increase the activity of a patient beginning with the passive set of movements and ending with the independent ambulation. After the implementation of early mobility therapy, patients will begin a special movement therapy in 24-48 hours after the mechanical ventilation (Schaller et al., 2016).

The early mobility therapy had been implemented until recently. For several years, many types of research were conducted to identify the advantages and disadvantages of this therapy. Eventually, a couple of years ago, some hospitals started to implement it. Thus, as for the frequency of the occurrence of this therapy, it is not frequent, as it is a new therapy, but those who have started to use it demonstrate chiefly the positive results (Reade & Finfer, 2014).

The initiation of the therapy begins after the establishment of the clearance from a physician or a medical team responsible for the ICU patients (approximately a week) and after the occupational therapy and/or the physical therapy has been consulted. Currently, numerous attempts are being made to launch more trials of the early mobility therapy for the ICU patients in combination with the interruption of sedation during the therapy time.

In this regard, this therapy becomes more frequent, and it may soon be fully introduced in nursing practice (Engel, Tatebe, Alonzo, Mustille, & Rivera, 2013). Additionally, the implementation of the early mobilization protocol requires a multidisciplinary approach that includes collaboration between physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, rehabilitation therapists, and administrators. Thus, this issue will engage all stakeholders, including improvement team leaders, senior leaders, and frontline staff who will be involved in the process of its implementation (Schaller et al., 2016).

Thus, this project will attempt to present evidence on the advantages and the disadvantages of early mobility therapy in the ICU in contrast to non-early mobility therapy. The rationale for choosing this particular nursing issue is that it is important and relevant now and requires much attention and effort on the side of all the stakeholders to be successfully implemented in nursing practice. Additionally, due to the lack of practical evidence of the positives and negatives of early mobilization therapy, it is crucial to conduct further research on this issue to accelerate its overall implementation. Moreover, this therapy has already proved to be safe and efficacious (Bernhardt, 2017).

PICO Question

Currently, the problem of the implementation of early mobility therapy in the ICU is relevant. Many types of research have been made since the first attempts to introduce this new program. Recent literature supports the need for this program, stating that it will help avoid the undesirable effects that can be caused by long bed rest and improve patient’s health (Reade & Finfer, 2014).

Based on the identified need for the early mobility therapy development in the ICU and the current relevance of the identified nursing issue the following PICO question is created to guide this project: In severely ill or injured patients in the ICU, do the early mobilization therapy results in ameliorated functional state and decrease ICU stay as compared to the non-early mobilization therapy? The main criterion for the search was the scholarly or peer-reviewed articles and journals using reliable databases like CINAHL, EBSCO, Medline Complete, PubMed, and Google Scholar Search. The key terms used in the literature search were critically ill patients, early ambulation, early mobility, bed rest, intensive care units, physical therapy, quality improvements, rehabilitation, therapy, and mechanical ventilation.

Research Literature Support

Leditschke, Green, Irvine, Bissett, and Mitchell (2012) conducted a quantitative study, with the purpose to find out the benefits of early mobilization of critically ill patients in the ICU and identify the frequency of this therapy. The research was a 4-week prospective audit on 106 patients from a mixed medical-surgical tertiary ICU, whose mean age was 60 years, median ICU length of stay was one day, and median hospital length of stay was 12.5 days. They were subject to 1) active mobilization, which consisted of marching on the spot for more than 30 seconds); 2) active transfer from bed to a chair; 3) passive transfer.

The researchers collected de-identified data on the number of days the patient was mobilized, the type of mobilization used, adverse factors, and reasons mobilization could not take place. It was found out that participants were mobilized on 176 of 327 days spent in ICU. 2 adverse events occurred during 176 mobilization episodes (1.1%). It was concluded that it was possible to mobilize critically ill patients for the majority of days of their stay in the ICU starting from the first (which supports the PICO of the study at hand). The key strength of the study is its scope and practical recommendations. Its major limitation is that no evidence proves that early mobilization is more effective than non-early therapy (Appendix A). The solution is to perform a similar study to compare the effects of the two approaches.

Engel, Needham, Morris, and Gropper, (2013) performed a qualitative study of the three selected medical centers for the success of their ICU early mobilization programs. The major purpose of the research was to compare and contrast the impact of an early mobility program produced on severely ill patients in three hospitals. The researchers used an interprofessional approach based on teamwork. As a result, the length of stay was reduced both in the ICU and in general care. Moreover, in all the three medical centers, this intervention also managed to lower the level of delirium and practically eliminated the need for sedation for the participants.

This allowed concluding that ICU early mobility quality improvement program is capable of improving patient outcomes, which supports the PICO. The strength is that the described program can easily be applied to other types of care units. Yet, there are no exact numeric indicators of the improvement, which is a limitation (Appendix A). The solution is to conduct a quantitative study to obtain statistical evidence.

Sricharoenchai et al. (2014) conducted a prospective observational study aimed to identify whether it is safe to use early mobilization therapy interventions in the ICU for reducing impaired physical functioning. The authors of the study explored how often and under what conditions some of 12 kinds of physiological abnormalities and safety risks presented by the implementation of mobilization therapy could appear. As a result of the experiment, 1787 patients with an ICU stay lasting a minimum of 24 hours, 1110 (62%) took part in 5267 mobilization sessions. All sessions were organized and performed by 10 therapists during 4580 days.

A total of 34 (0.6%) of these sessions revealed safety risks or physiological abnormalities. None of these required any additional costs or prolonged stay, which supports the effectiveness of the therapy indicated in the PICO. The strength of the study is its huge sample size increasing the liability and validity of the experiment. Its limitation is that only one hospital was involved in the research (Appendix A). The solution is to repeat the experiment in other hospitals which will include the influence of clinical factors as a variable.

Lord et al. (2013) performed a quantitative study, collecting data from articles and the actual implementation of the program and created their model of net financial savings. The researchers’ major goal was to evaluate how much annual cost implementation of the ICU early mobilization therapy allows saving. The intervention consisted of financial modeling of results for the implementation of the early mobilization program.

The researcher presented the results of using the developed model for ICUs with 200, 600, 900, and 2,000 annual admissions. It was identified that $817,836 of cost savings could be achieved through the implementation of the program in the example scenario with 900 patients per year. These savings were generated through stay reductions of 22% (for ICU) and 19% (for the floor). This implies that the program indeed allows saving costs through the amelioration of patients’ condition (which again supports the PICO). The key strength of the study is that a new model was developed that relies on actual experiments of the program implementation. The limitation is that there is hardly any novelty except for the implementation of a new tool (Appendix A). The solution would be to apply the same tool to compare the effects of different types of mobilization therapy as this may give unprecedented results.

Theoretical Framework and Change Model

For this project, Lewin’s Change Theory was selected as a theoretical framework as it provides a method to successfully implement a planned change (the one occurring by design). The main concepts of the theory are field and force. The former is a system, which means that in case one of its elements changes, the whole body of it is affected. Change is viewed in a disrupted balance of driving and restraining forces.

While a driving force initiates movement or shifts towards transformation, a restraining force is the one hindering the process. In the case of the early mobility issue, the driving forces include educational programs for staff and patients, evidence-based literature supporting early mobilization, administration support, etc. Restraining forces are numerous: patients’ reluctance to try early mobilization as a part of general resistance to change, nurses’ unwillingness due to the fear of accident extubation, patients’ delirium, oversedation, lack of specific policies and comprehensive programs, etc. Thus, according to the chosen theory, it is needed to

  1. unfreeze the status quo;
  2. gradually introduce changes;
  3. freeze the change making it durable by assimilating in the system (Shirey, 2013).

The success and sustainability of the project intervention will be ensured by the capability of the framework to allow a better understanding of patients’ needs and fears and developing an implementation plan by these factors. An education program will be required to integrate early mobilization into practice since it cannot simply be imposed upon ICU patients if they opt for non-early intervention or no mobility at all. Lewin’s framework will make it possible to change the entire system through an individual change.

The implementation of the proposed change will be guided by the Logic Model for Program Development since it allows planning the desired outputs, outcomes, and the general impact of the change in advance. The model also makes it possible to measure both patients’ and nurses’ knowledge concerning the benefits of early mobilization in the ICU to assess what training will be required (Chen, 2014).

Research Approach and Design

Since the research goal is to answer whether a severely ill or injured patient will have an ameliorated functional state and a decreased stay in hospital with the realization of the early mobilization therapy compared to the non-early mobilization therapy, it would be reasonable to opt for a quantitative approach. The design is going to be experimental. It will test a hypothesis through intervention, the impact of which will be the major focus of the study.

Furthermore, the experiment is required to look for ways to improve the condition of real patients. The choice of this approach is accounted for by the fact that it allows controlling the study conditions using precise measures and strict regulations of all variables. The major advantage of the quantitative study is that it is possible to generalize the results from a sample to a larger group of the population. Yet, there is also a disadvantage: The research design does not allow discovering anything new since it is purely deductive.

Sampling Method

The target population that the study is going to address will include severely ill or injured patients from 25 to 65 years of age undergoing treatment in the ICU. Non-probability sampling will be used, which is supported by the fact that only patients of a particular age group who currently suffer from acute diseases or injuries will be eligible to participate in the research. This type of sampling was selected because it allows researchers to focus on a particular group of patients (as it would be wrong to involve patients from the general care unit in the same experiment).

The following steps will constitute the sampling procedure:

  • establishing eligibility criteria;
  • choosing a random sample of patients from 25 to 65 undergoing treatment in the ICU;
  • informing the participants about the goals of the research and obtaining their informed consent;
  • collecting background information about the participants to decide on variables;
  • dividing the patients into the control (receiving non-early mobilization therapy) and intervention groups (undergoing early mobilization); each group will include approximately 50 participants.

The two major advantages of this sampling procedure is that: 1) non-probability sampling implies that only patients meeting the criteria will be able to participate–therefore, the intervention will be thoroughly controlled and the results will be precise; 2) at the same time, randomized trial will eliminate bias. Yet, there is also a disadvantage: Non-probability samplings practically do not take into account extraneous variables, which can be influential.

Institutional Review Board help researchers protect participants’ rights relying on the following principles:

  • obtaining informed consent;
  • respecting confidentiality and privacy;
  • discussing the limits of confidentiality (informing participants what data will be made public and how it will be used) and preventing their violation;
  • informing participants about federal and state laws that protect their rights.

Data Collection Procedure

Since the key goal is to identify whether early mobilization therapy is more effective than non-early interventions, I decided to opt for a quantitative approach. This decision is accounted for by the fact that I need statistics to be able to address the study issue. I believe that exactly this study approach has the biggest potential to answer the research question as it will allow assessing the impact of both alternative methods and make conclusions having compared numerical data (Grove, Burns, & Gray, 2014).

As far as data collection method is concerned, it will be performed through the following steps (Creswell, 2013):

  • collecting background information about the participants;
  • dividing the patients into the control (receiving non-early mobilization therapy) and intervention groups (undergoing early mobilization); each group will include approximately 50 participants;
  • organizing an intervention, during which the control group will receive non-early mobilization therapy whereas the intervention group will be subjected to early mobility;
  • performing the same examination as before the intervention in both groups to compare the effectiveness of the two types of therapy.

A randomized controlled trial will allow identifying which type of intervention is more effective. Yet, to make sure that the effects are lasting, it will be necessary to assess the impact of early and non-early mobilization on ICU length of stay for a period exceeding 2 years. The data collection procedure will start by measuring ICU mobilization activity among patients aged 25-65. To minimize the impact of extraneous variables, patients who have aggravating conditions (neuromuscular disease, post-cardiac arrest, increased intracranial pressure, obesity, etc.) will not be eligible for participation in the research.

The following data collection points are important to obtain:

  • demographic data (age, gender, etc.);
  • ICU length of stay;
  • first out-of-bed mobilization (if any);
  • duration of therapy;
  • medical stability (heart rate, blood pressure, arterial pressure, electrocardiogram, respiratory rate).

The members of the intervention group are to receive a 30-minute session of mobilization therapy twice a day for a minimum of five days per week starting from their admission to ICU until discharge. On the contrary, members of the control group will be subject to non-early intervention (approximately 1 month before the discharge).

To obtain the most accurate results possible, it will be necessary not only to collect the above-mentioned physiologic data but also to self-reports provided by patients. The point is that it is always recommendable to support statistical reports with patients’ perception of the intervention. That is why the participants will fill out open questionnaires to report their physical and emotional state before and after the intervention. Their self-reports will be compared with the statistics obtained as per their physiologic indicators.

The quality of data will be fostered through the following:

  • eliminating bias through randomized sampling;
  • obtaining the consent of the participants (ensuring their willingness to contribute);
  • reducing the impact of extraneous variables;
  • comparing the effects of both types of therapy;
  • using both objective and subjective reports of the results.

Analysis

For the study at hand, the T-test was selected. The major reason for this is that it suits the small sample size (100-200 participants) and clearly shows differences in research outcomes for all groups involved. Moreover, it is advisable to use this type of statistics when two normal distributions are unidentified. Mean or the arithmetic average is a typical measure of central tendency applied in t-tests.

It is calculated as a sum of the value of every observation conducted in the selected sample divided by a number of all observations during the period covered by the research. Since the participants of the experiments will have to be tested more than once, it would be reasonable to use an inferential test–a type of statistical test that involves repeated measures. Each participant of the two research groups will be measured on the same variables: various physical reactions to early and non-early mobilization therapy. This strategy seems to be the most appropriate for the given research since it makes it possible to assess the impact of each intervention in its relation to the chosen study variables together with the type of therapy for each group.

Yet, it is not enough to obtain statistical data since patient-reported information may be quite different. For comparison purposes, it is recommended to collect information via open questionnaires. Patients will be offered to answer several questions about their condition before the experiment and their perception of the result of the intervention. Afterward, the data obtained from the statistics will be compared to those answers to make sure that no misinterpretation took place.

Other advantages of t-tests include:

  • The simplicity of interpretation. Since any t-test demonstrates how different the mean of one group of participants is from the other group, it is much easier to calculate the average difference between the control and the intervention group. Furthermore, it is also easy to identify whether this difference is significant from the statistical point of view.
  • Robustness. It means that even though two populations are supposed to be distributed normally, the test still allows two samples from population groups having quite different incoming data.
  • Ease of data gathering. In fact, despite the seeming complexity of the t-test in comparison to descriptive analysis, it requires very little data without which it cannot be performed. The only integral measure is one value from each subject.
  • Ease of calculation. Since people who were easily allowed to selected and participate will test in all suggested procedures, it would be much easier to make them take part in the research (Parahoo, 2014).

Evaluation Plan

To evaluate the outcomes of implementing such intervention as the early mobility therapy for severely ill or injured patients in the ICU, it is necessary to conduct surveys for control and intervention groups of patients, as well as for the nursing staff. It is important to compare and contrast changes in patients’ mobility and health outcomes, as well as changes in their general experiences and emotional health, with the help of surveys that can be used during the process of experimenting and after completing the project (Abrams et al., 2014; Cameron et al., 2015). To evaluate the level of success of this project, it is necessary to focus on intervention outcomes and identifying any positive changes in patients’ experiences.

The following evaluation procedure will be used to determine the effectiveness of the project: after completing the intervention, patients from two groups will answer survey questions that will be added as an evaluation section to the used questionnaires. Since this section will be filled-in before and after the intervention, it will be possible to determine changes in patients’ outcomes, experiences, and perceptions to analyze the achieved progress. Perceptions, attitudes, and visions of nurses should also be assessed to understand the project’s success for improving operations and patients’ outcomes in the ICU (Appendix B).

Such stakeholders as the ICU administrators and healthcare professionals will receive the information about the intervention results in the form of a formal report that will present statistical data and the summary of changes determined by patients and nurses in the answers to survey questions. The ongoing evaluation to support the intervention implementation is also important for project success. Thus, intermediate assessments are required to monitor the progress of the intervention project (Appendix B). They will be proposed for both patients and nurses. These ongoing evaluation procedures are important to control the project realization.

Translation of Results and Dissemination

After the completion of the project, it is possible to expect that the stay in the ICU for those patients who participated in the early mobilization program will decrease, and their rehabilitation process will improve. In comparison to the non-early mobilization therapy, the program oriented to the early mobility is effective to cope with neuromuscular weakness and prevent neuropsychological impairments for severely ill or injured patients (Crabtree, Brennan, Davis, & Coyle, 2016). Furthermore, the project will help identify cases in which the use of early mobilization therapy can be ineffective or even risky. As a result, the project will demonstrate what particular therapy can be successfully implemented in the concrete ICU depending on patients’ needs.

It is possible to state that the results of the project will be feasible for the implementation by nurse practitioners in ICUs because they will be presented in the form of a report and a plan with guidelines for nurses, which will be based on the analysis of data. These results will be used to develop the therapy schedule for the ICU patients to be implemented by nurse practitioners, including FNPs, in the ICU, and other units. The project results will also be appropriate to be integrated into the work of the ICU by nurses because the findings will demonstrate how 30-minute sessions of the mobilization therapy organized twice a day for five days per week can improve severely ill patients’ mobility, health outcomes, and daily experiences. Furthermore, it will be possible to speak about the safety of this therapy.

Also, the project results will provide important evidence to improve the advanced practice of FNPs not only in the ICU but also in other units where FNPs work with severely ill patients who require mobility therapy and rehabilitation. Nurse practitioners will be able to use the project findings to plan their work with patients and set goals depending on the schedule of early mobility therapy and a patient’s state. Nurses will also improve their approach to analyzing patients’ physical state to predict outcomes of the therapy and its potential safety.

Processes for the dissemination of the project results should be based on three stages. Firstly, the findings should be disseminated to the ICU unit manager, administrators, and nurse leaders, who participated in the project realization as stakeholders. They will be provided with a well-structured formal report that includes the overview and analysis of the project results. The practical significance of the intervention will be described. Secondly, the nursing staff, including FNPs and other nurse practitioners, will be provided with an informal report of the project results (Scala, Price, & Day, 2016).

The PowerPoint presentation is the most appropriate approach to disseminating the findings to these stakeholders during a meeting. Posters and brochures on the topic can be used in the ICU to inform patients and relatives regarding the project findings. Thirdly, the results will be disseminated to a larger community of nurses. For this purpose, it is important to publish the study findings in a peer-reviewed journal.

Conclusion

The early mobilization therapy is proposed in ICUs as an approach to preventing complications for severely ill and injured patients. However, the problem is that, for some patients, this therapy can be ineffective or inappropriate, and for other patients, the non-early mobilization therapy can also be inefficient. The purpose of this project is to evaluate whether the early mobilization therapy is more effective than the non-early mobilization therapy for patients in ICUs, and how it can be integrated effectively to improve patients’ outcomes. The selection of the therapy as the solution to the problem of patients’ rehabilitation is based on the literature review and existing evidence in the field.

The application of the quantitative methodology to collect and analyze data is important to receive accurate results regarding improvements in inpatient care. Also, the evaluation of the project’s progress and success is important to control its implementation and relevance for ICUs.

While preparing this study, I learned what types of mobility therapies can be effectively used by FNPs and other nurse practitioners in ICUs. It has been found concerning the literature that early mobilization therapies are more beneficial for patients than non-early mobilization therapies, but programs associated with early mobility can have significant adverse effects and lead to complications.

The reliance on evidence-based practice was important to determine schedules that could lead to the best outcomes. I can state that the results of this project can be adapted to nurse practitioners’ practice because they can analyze patients’ state, age, diagnoses, and develop early mobility plans depending on these data. Therefore, the contribution of this project to my specialty track is significant: nurse practitioners will receive direct guidelines based on the experiment regarding the implementation of the early mobility program in ICUs to avoid adverse effects and complications.

References

Abrams, D., Javidfar, J., Farrand, E., Mongero, L. B., Agerstrand, C. L., Ryan, P.,… Bacchetta, M. (2014). Early mobilization of patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A retrospective cohort study. Critical Care, 18(1), 38-45. Web.

Bernhardt, J. (2017). Early mobilisation and rehabilitation in the intensive care unit – ready for implementation? Annals of Translational Medicine, 5(3), 57-59. Web.

Cameron, S., Ball, I., Cepinskas, G., Choong, K., Doherty, T. J., Ellis, C. G.,… Fraser, D. D. (2015). Early mobilization in the critical care unit: A review of adult and pediatric literature. Journal of Critical Care, 30(4), 664-672. Web.

Chen, H. T. (2014). Practical program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Web.

Clark, D. E., Lowman, J. D., Griffin, R. L., Matthews, H. M., & Reiff, D. A. (2013). Effectiveness of an early mobilization protocol in a trauma and burns the intensive care unit: A retrospective cohort study. Physical Therapy, 93(2), 186-196. Web.

Crabtree, E., Brennan, E., Davis, A., & Coyle, A. (2016). Improving patient care through nursing engagement in evidence‐based practice. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 13(2), 172-175. Web.

Engel, H. J., Needham, D. M., Morris, P. E., & Gropper, M. A. (2013). ICU early mobilization: From recommendation to implementation at three medical centers. Critical Care Medicine, 41(9), S69-S80. Web.

Engel, H. J., Tatebe, S., Alonzo, P. B., Mustille, R. L., & Rivera, M. J. (2013). Physical therapist–established the intensive care unit early mobilization program: Quality improvement project for critical care at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center. Physical Therapy, 93(7), 975-985. Web.

Grove, S. K., Burns, N., & Gray, J. (2014). Understanding nursing research: Building an-based practice. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Health Sciences. Web.

Leditschke, I. A., Green, M., Irvine, J., Bissett, B., & Mitchell, I. A. (2012). What are the barriers to mobilizing intensive care patients? Cardiopulmonary Physical Therapy Journal, 23(1), 26-29. Web.

Lord, R. K., Mayhew, C. R., Korupolu, R., Mantheiy, E. C., Friedman, M. A., Palmer, J. B., & Needham, D. M. (2013). ICU early physical rehabilitation programs: Financial modeling of cost savings. Critical Care Medicine, 41(3), 717-724. Web.

Parahoo, K. (2014). Nursing research: Principles, process and issues. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Web.

Patel, B. K., Pohlman, A. S., Hall, J. B., & Kress, J. P. (2014). Impact of early mobilization on glycemic control and ICU-acquired weakness in critically ill patients who are mechanically ventilated. CHEST Journal, 146(3), 583-589. Web.

Reade, M. C., & Finfer, S. (2014). Sedation and delirium in the intensive care unit. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(5), 444-454. Web.

Scala, E., Price, C., & Day, J. (2016). An integrative review of engaging clinical nurses in nursing research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 48(4), 423-430. Web.

Schaller, S. J., Anstey, M., Blobner, M., Edrich, T., Grabitz, S. D., Gradwohl-Matis, I.,… Lee, J. (2016). Early, goal-directed mobilisation in the surgical the intensive care unit: A randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 388(10052), 1377-1388. Web.

Shirey, M. R. (2013). Lewin’s theory of planned change as a strategic resource. Journal of Nursing Administration, 43(2), 69-72. Web.

Sricharoenchai, T., Parker, A. M., Zanni, J. M., Nelliot, A., Dinglas, V. D., & Needham, D. M. (2014). Safety of physical therapy interventions in critically ill patients: A single-center prospective evaluation of 1110 intensive care unit admissions. Journal of Critical Care, 29(3), 395-400. Web.

Appendix A

Research Critique Table

PICOT/PICO Question: In severely ill or injured patients in the ICU, does the early mobilization therapy result in ameliorated functional state and decrease hospital stay as compared to the non-early mobilization therapy?

Author & Title Purpose of the research Research Design and Sample Intervention Results Strengths (S)
Limitations (L)
Leditschke, I. A., Green, M., Irvine, J., Bissett, B., & Mitchell, I. A. (2012). What are the barriers to mobilizing intensive care patients? The purpose is to study benefits of early mobilization of critically ill patients in ICU and identify the frequency of this therapy in hospitals across the country in order to understand what obstacles currently hinder the process Quantitative Study: A 4-week prospective audit of 106 patients in ICU The researchers conducted a 4 week prospective audit on 106 patients from a mixed medical-surgical tertiary ICU, whose mean age was 60 years, median ICU length of stay was one day, and median hospital length of stay was 12.5 days. They applied three types of mobilizations techniques: 1) active mobilization, which consisted in marching on the spot for more than 30 seconds); 2) active transfer from bed to chair; 3)passive transfer (with the use of various assisting devices to help the patient get out of bed). After that, the researchers collected de-identified data on the number of days the patient was mobilized, the type of mobilization used, various adverse factors, and reasons mobilization could not take place It was found out that the participants of the experiment were mobilized on 176 of 327 days spent in ICU. There were 2 adverse events that occurred during 176 mobilization episodes (1.1%). In 71 (47%) of the 151 days, during which no mobilization took place, the researchers singled out factors that could be avoided (they included vascular access devices in the femoral region, the length of clinical procedures and lowered level of consciousness). This led them to the conclusion that it is possible to mobilize critically ill patients for the majority of days of their stay in ICU. This can be done by changing the site of their catheters, regulating procedure timing, and improving sedation S-scope of the study, practical recommendations; L-no evidence proving the impact of the proposed strategies
Engel, H. J., Needham, D. M., Morris, P. E., & Gropper, M. A. (2013). ICU early mobilization: From recommendation to implementation at three medical centers The major purpose of the research is to compare and contrast the way an early mobility program was introduced in three medical centers in order to assist patients in ICU and to estimate what impact the program produced on severely ill patients in each case Qualitative study
examination of the three selected medical centers as for the success of their ICU early mobilization quality improvement programs, which were thoroughly analyzed using Institute for Healthcare Improvement framework of Plan-Do-Study-Act
The researchers used an interprofessional approach based on teamwork in order to plan, structure, teach, and apply ICU early mobilization program in each of the three medical centers. They also selected the best specialists from each profession (physical therapy, respiratory care, physician, and nursing) in order to make changes introduced into clinical practice in general and ICU in particular run smoother. Besides, those specialists were to identify possible obstacles to the program and remove them As a result of implementing an early mobilization quality improvement program in all ICUs, the length of stay was reduced both in ICU and in hospital. Moreover, in all the three medical centers, this intervention also managed to lower the level of delirium and practically eliminated the need for sedation for those patients who took part in the project. This allowed concluding that ICU early mobility quality improvement program is capable of improving patient outcomes and lead to lower costs of treatment in ICU in all settings under analysis S-the described program can easily be applied to other types care units.
L-there are no exact numeric indicators of the improvement
Sricharoenchai, T., Parker, A. M., Zanni, J. M., Nelliot, A., Dinglas, V. D., & Needham, D. M. (2014). Safety of physical therapy interventions in critically ill patients: a single-center prospective evaluation of 1110 intensive care unit admissions The researchers aimed to identify whether it is safe to use mobilization therapy interventions in ICU for reducing impaired physical functioning the critical illness patients usually have A prospective observational study was performed to investigate routine physical therapy delivered in the Johns Hopkins Hospital Medical Intensive Care Unit in Baltimore, MD The authors of the study explored how often and under what conditions some of 12 kinds of physiological abnormalities and various safety risks associated presented by the implementation of mobilization therapy could appear. They evaluated the therapy as for the necessity of any additional interventions, cost, and length of stay As a result of the experiment, 1787 patients with ICU stay lasting minimum 24 hours, 1110 (62%) took part in 5267 mobilization sessions. All sessions were organized and performed by 10 therapists during 4580 days. A total of 34 (0.6%) of these sessions revealed safety risks or physiological abnormalities (mostly arrhythmia and arterial pressure exceeding 140 mm Hg or falling under 55 mm Hg). None of these required any additional costs or prolonged stay S- huge sample size increasing liability and validity of the experiment; L-only one hospital involved in the research, which means that the influence of clinical factors did not act as a variable
Lord, R. K., Mayhew, C. R., Korupolu, R., Mantheiy, E. C., Friedman, M. A., Palmer, J. B., & Needham, D. M. (2013). ICU early physical rehabilitation programs: Financial modeling of cost savings The researchers’ major goal was to evaluate how much annual costs implementation of ICU early mobilization therapy allows saving Quantitative study: The Authors collected data from articles and other publications related to the topic as well data from the actual implementation of the program in John Hopkins Hospital Medical ICU and created their own model of net financial savings The intervention consisted in financial modeling of results for the implementation of ICU early mobilization program. The researcher presented the results of using the developed model for ICUs with 200, 600, 900, and 2,000 annual admissions. They performed calculations for both normal and best possible scenarios. The example financial analysis was the Johns Hopkins Medical ICU early rehabilitation program, which has more than 900 patients per year. Cost savings related to reduction of admissions were taken into consideration. It was identified that $817,836 of cost savings could be achieved through the implementation of the program in the example scenario with 900 patients per year. These savings were generated through stay reductions of 22% (for ICU) and 19% (for floor). As far as the best possible scenario is concerned, financial projections ranging from –$87,611 to $3,763,149 were predicted for ICUs with 200-2000 admissions per year. This implies that the program indeed allows saving costs S-The new model was developed that relies on actual experiments of the program implementation. L-there is hardly any novelty in the experience except the implementation of a new tool

Appendix B

Evaluation Tools

Evaluation Section in the Questionnaire

  1. I have noticed positive changes in my/patients’ physical and emotional state (Yes/No).
  2. I am satisfied with the used schedule for procedures (Yes/No).
  3. My/patients’ stay in the ICU decreased (Yes/No).
  4. Cases of complications became rare (Yes/No).
  5. Outcomes associated with the early mobilization therapy are better than with the non-early/traditional mobilization therapy (Yes/No).
  6. Additional notes.

Intermediate Assessment

  1. Are there any obvious changes/differences in health outcomes for patients participating in the early mobilization therapy in contrast to the non-early/traditional mobilization therapy?
  2. What changes/differences can be observed?
  3. Are there any adverse effects or complications?
  4. What adverse effects or complications are identified?
  5. Is the intervention successful at this stage of its implementation? How?
  6. Additional notes.