Search

At the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there was scarce data about clinical/functional conditions during hospitalization or after hospital discharge. Little was known about COVID-19 repercussions and how to do early mobilization in intensive care unit (ICU). Identify the time to the initiation of out-of-bed mobilization and the levels of mobility (sitting over the edge of the bed, sitting in a chair, standing, and ambulating) reached by critically ill patients with COVID-19 during hospitalization and the factors that could impact early mobilization. This was a retrospective observational study of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. There were 157 surviving COVID-19 patients included in the study (median age: 61 years; median ICU length of stay: 12 days). The median time to initiate out-of-bed mobilization in the ICU was 6 days; between patients who received mechanical ventilation (MV) compared with those who did not, this time was 8 vs. 2.5 days (p <.001). Most patients who used MV were mobilized after extubation (79.6%). During ICU stays, 88.0% of all patients were mobilized out of bed, and 41.0% were able to ambulate either with assistance or independently. The time to initiate out-of-bed mobilization is associated with sedation time and MV time. Despite the pandemic scenario, patients were quickly mobilized out of bed, and most of the patients achieved higher mobility levels in the ICU and at hospital discharge. Sedation time and MV time were associated with delays in initiating mobilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale is the most used tool to quantify balance confidence, a psychological factor related to balance impairment among older adults. Objective: To investigate the validity and reliability of the original and short versions of the Brazilian Activities-specific Balance Confidence scales, to determine cutoff points for balance impairments and to identify the determinants of balance confidence of community-dwelling older adults. Methods: The validity of both versions of the scales was verified by correlating its results with postural balance, fear of falling and mobility (n = 105). Both scales were administered with a 30 min (interrater reliability, n = 158) and 1-week intervals (intrarater reliability, n = 105). Receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the cutoff points, and linear regression was applied to identify the determinants of balance confidence. Results: The Brazilian versions of the scale correlated to postural balance, fear of falling and mobility (p <.05). Excellent interrater (α = 0.946, 95% CI: 0.902–0.976; α = 0.932, 95% CI: 0.918–0.960) and intrarater reliability (α = 0.946, 95% CI: 0.905–0.960; α = 0.952, 95% CI: 0.921–0.965) were found for the original and short versions. Values of ≤67% (sensitivity: 81%, specificity: 77.4%) and ≤44% (sensitivity: 87.5%, specificity: 82.1%) were observed to identify balance impairments for the original and short versions of the scale. Physical inactivity, fear of falling, imbalance sensation, and number of falls are the main determinants of balance confidence. Conclusion: Both scales are valid and reliable to assess balance confidence. Cutoff points to identify balance impairments were determined and some factors may act as possible predictors of balance confidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]