BACKGROUND: Although studies have confirmed the safety and feasibility of early active mobilization, its implementation status is still unsatisfactory. The most important obstacle is ensuring patient safety. Comprehensively assessing the physical condition of patients considered for mobilization is the basis of safety. However, appropriate guidance is lacking. We performed a systematic review to extract and summarize current safety assessment criteria for the early active mobilization of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using English and Chinese databases according to the PRISMA checklist and guidelines to identify relevant original studies that evaluated safety assessment variables and specific parameters. RESULTS: A total of 24 medium-and high-quality articles involving a total of 4,842 subjects were included in the analysis. Among these studies, there were 15 randomized controlled trials involving 1,777 subjects (888 in the control groups, 889 in the interventional groups) and 9 cohort studies involving 3,065 subjects (1,240 in the control groups, 1,825 in the exposure groups). There were 5 safety assessment criteria, including cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, musculoskeletal, and other. Within these were 17 different variables and 48 specific parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The safety assessment criteria should focus on cardiac reserve, respiratory reserve, consciousness, and muscle strength. It is especially important to note whether the parameters are stable because parameter stability can be more representative of a patient's condition than absolute values. We provide a flow diagram for clinical safety assessments; however, some limitations exist, and this assessment requires further validation and optimization.
Introduction As the frequency of infectious diseases rises, it’s more important than ever to pay attention to the competency level of front-line nurses as the primary force in front-line rescue, which has an impact on the quality of anti-epidemic response. This paper aims to construct the competency evaluation index system for front-line nurses during the outbreak of major infectious diseases. Materials and methods This study combined literature review, critical incident technique interviews, and semi-structured in-depth interviews, as well as two rounds of Delphi expert correspondence, to construct a competence evaluation index system for front-line nurses during the outbreak of major infectious diseases. The study used purposive sampling to select 26 experts from 11 provinces and cities across China to conduct two rounds of Delphi expert consultation, and the indicators were selected based on the mean importance score > 3.5 and the coefficient of variation < 0.25, and the weights of the indicators were calculated by the Analytic Hierarchy Process. The effective recovery rates of the two rounds of correspondence questionnaires were 93.1% and 96%. Results The effective recovery rates of the two rounds of correspondence questionnaires were 93.1% and 96%, the authority coefficients of experts were 0.96 and 0.98, the Kendall’s coordination coefficients of the first, second, and third level indexes were 0.281, 0.132, and 0.285 (P < 0.001), 0.259, 0.158, and 0.415 (P < 0.001). The final index system includes 4 primary indicators (Knowledge System of Infectious Diseases, Nursing Skills for Infectious Diseases, Related Professional Abilities for Infectious Diseases, and Comprehensive Quality), 10 secondary indicators, and 64 tertiary indicators. Conclusion The competency evaluation index system of front-line nurses during the outbreak of major infectious diseases is scientific, reasonable, and practical, which can provide a scientific basis for nursing managers to accurately understand, describe, analyze, and evaluate the competence level of nursing staff and scientifically implement the allocation of human resources in the future, as well as serve as a content framework for subsequent training programs.
Background Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been over 2 million deaths globally. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) may be the main cause of death. Objective This study aimed to describe the clinical features, outcomes, and ARDS characteristics of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in Chongqing, China. Methods The epidemiology of COVID-19 from January 21, 2020, to March 15, 2020, in Chongqing, China, was analyzed retrospectively, and 75 ICU patients from two hospitals were included in this study. On day 1, 56 patients with ARDS were selected for subgroup analysis, and a modified Poisson regression was performed to identify predictors for the early improvement of ARDS (eiARDS). Results Chongqing reported a 5.3% case fatality rate for the 75 ICU patients. The median age of these patients was 57 (IQR 25-75) years, and no bias was present in the sex ratio. A total of 93% (n=70) of patients developed ARDS during ICU stay, and more than half had moderate ARDS. However, most patients (n=41, 55%) underwent high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy, but not mechanical ventilation. Nearly one-third of patients with ARDS improved (arterial blood oxygen partial pressure/oxygen concentration >300 mm Hg) in 1 week, which was defined as eiARDS. Patients with eiARDS had a higher survival rate and a shorter length of ICU stay than those without eiARDS. Age (<55 years) was the only variable independently associated with eiARDS, with a risk ratio of 2.67 (95% CI 1.17-6.08). Conclusions A new subphenotype of ARDS—eiARDS—in patients with COVID-19 was identified. As clinical outcomes differ, the stratified management of patients based on eiARDS or age is highly recommended.
BackgroundHyperglycaemia is common in critically ill adult patients. Many studies have identified the content, methods, and effects of glycaemic control but have not explored the effects of knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) on glycaemic control in critically ill adults. Various factors also influence the KAP of intensive care unit (ICU) staff.AimsTo assess KAP regarding glucose management for critically ill adults among nurses and medical professionals and identify the factors that influence their KAP in ICUs.MethodsA multicentre cross‐sectional survey.ResultsIn total, 403/459 (response rate: 87.8%) participants from ICUs in nine tertiary hospitals in China participated in this study, 82.4% of whom were female and 93.4% of whom were nurses. The mean work experience was 8.88 years, and the mean critical care experience was 6.59 years. The scoring rate for the three dimensions of knowledge, attitudes, and practices were 82.35%, 87.69%, and 76%, respectively. We did not find any other factors affecting the KAP scores except for the level of knowledge awareness (p < 0.001), awareness of the importance (p < 0.001), and training for glucose control (p = 0.004).ConclusionICU staff KAP regarding glycaemic control in critically ill adults among ICU professionals were acceptable in China. However, ICU professionals' current knowledge regarding nutrition, glucose variability, and skills related to glucose management could be improved.Relevance to Clinical PracticeICU educators should provide more skills‐related training for healthcare professionals in the glycaemic management of critically ill adults. Moreover, the process of managing blood glucose in adult ICU patients is a collaborative, multidisciplinary team effort, with monitoring and feedback required during implementation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.