In this 1-day point-prevalence study conducted across Germany, only 24% of all mechanically ventilated patients and only 8% of patients with an endotracheal tube were mobilized out of bed as part of routine care. Addressing modifiable barriers for mobilization, such as deep sedation, will be important to increase mobilization in German ICUs.

Early mobilization of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is safe, feasible, and beneficial. However, implementation of early mobility as part of routine clinical care can be challenging. The objective of this review is to identify barriers to early mobilization and discuss strategies to overcome such barriers. Based on a literature search, we synthesize data from 40 studies reporting 28 unique barriers to early mobility, of which 14 (50%) were patient-related, 5 (18%) structural, 5 (18%) ICU cultural, and 4 (14%) process-related barriers. These barriers varied across ICUs and within disciplines, depending on the ICU patient population, setting, attitude, and ICU culture. To overcome the identified barriers, over 70 strategies were reported and are synthesized in this review, including: implementation of safety guidelines; use of mobility protocols; interprofessional training, education, and rounds; and involvement of physician champions. Systematic efforts to change ICU culture to prioritize early mobilization using an interprofessional approach and multiple targeted strategies are important components of successfully implementing early mobility in clinical practice.

Health professionals have anxieties about possible consequences of FWR, strategies involving education and simulation training may improve attitudes.

No abstract

Background: Delirium is a serious complication in patients in intensive care units. Previous surveys on delirium management in daily practice showed low adherence to published guidelines. Aim: To evaluate delirium management in nurses and physicians working in intensive care units in German-speaking countries and to identify related differences between nurses and physicians. Design: The study used an open online survey with multiple-choice responses. Methods: An invitation for participation was spread via journals and electronic resources using a snowball system. Apart from recording socio-demographical characteristics, the survey collected data on delirium assessment, delirium-related processes, non-pharmacological prevention and treatment and barriers for implementation. Differences between nurses and physicians were tested by Fisher's exact test with sequential Bonferroni correction. Results: The survey was conducted in autumn 2016, and 559 clinicians participated. More nurses than physicians reported screening for delirium. The majority of clinicians reported screening for delirium when this was suspected; more than 50% used validated instruments. Half of the clinicians had delirium-related structures implemented, such as two thirds reporting delirium-related processes. Most cited barriers were lack of time and missing knowledge about delirium and its assessment. With significant difference, physicians recommended more than nurses early removal of catheters and daily interprofessional goals for patients. Conclusion: In German-speaking countries, assessment of delirium needs further improvement, leading to accurate assessment. Delirium-related structures and processes appear to be implemented widely, with only a few differences between nurses and physicians. Relevance to clinical practice: Nurses and physicians in this survey reported similar perceptions and attitudes towards management of delirium. Both professions need more knowledge and inter-professional training on when and how to use validated assessment instruments.

No abstract

There is no consensus regarding collaboration, competencies, and responsibilities with respect to early mobilization of intensive care patients. The approach to date has been characterized by a lack of interprofessional communication, which may lead to an inefficient use of the broad and varied base of knowledge and experienceof the different professions.

Background Mobilization of intensive care patients is a multi-professional task. Aim of this study was to explore how different professions working at Intensive Care Units (ICU) estimate the mobility capacity using the ICU Mobility Score in 10 different scenarios. Methods T en fictitious patient-scenarios and guideline-related knowledge were assessed using an online survey. Critical care team members in German-speaking countries were invited to participate. All datasets including professional data and at least one scenario were analyzed. Kruskal Wallis test was used for the individual scenarios, while a linear mixed-model was used over all responses. Results In total, 515 of 788 (65%) participants could be evaluated. Physicians (p = 0.001) and nurses (p = 0.002) selected a lower ICU Mobility Score (-0.7 95% CI -1.1 to -0.3 and -0.4 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2, respectively) than physical therapists, while other specialists did not (p = 0.81). Participants who classified themselves as experts or could define early mobilization in accordance to the “S2e guideline: positioning and early mobilisation in prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary disorders” correctly selected higher mobilization levels (0.2 95% CI 0.0 to 0.4, p = 0.049 and 0.3 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5, p = 0.002, respectively). Conclusion Different professions scored the mobilization capacity of patients differently, with nurses and physicians estimating significantly lower capacity than physical therapists. The exact knowledge of guidelines and recommendations, such as the definition of early mobilization, independently lead to a higher score. Interprofessional education, interprofessional rounds and mobilization activities could further enhance knowledge and practice of mobilization in the critical care team.