Search

A scientific panel was created consisting of 23 interdisciplinary and interprofessional experts in intensive care medicine, physiotherapy, nursing care, surgery, rehabilitative medicine, and pneumology delegated from scientific societies together with a patient representative and a delegate from the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies who advised methodological implementation. The guideline was created according to the German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF), based on The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. The topics of (early) mobilisation, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, assist devices for mobilisation, and positioning, including prone positioning, were identified as areas to be addressed and assigned to specialist expert groups, taking conflicts of interest into account. The panel formulated PICO questions (addressing the population, intervention, comparison or control group as well as the resulting outcomes), conducted a systematic literature review with abstract screening and full-text analysis and created summary tables. This was followed by grading the evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence and a risk of bias assessment. The recommendations were finalized according to GRADE and voted using an online Delphi process followed by a final hybrid consensus conference. The German long version of the guideline was approved by the professional associations. For this English version an update of the systematic review was conducted until April 2024 and recommendation adapted based on new evidence in systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. In total, 46 recommendations were developed and research gaps addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Medizinische Klinik: Intensivmedizin & Notfallmedizin is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In critical care medicine, where there is a demanding career with a problematic work-life balance, mentoring is an important support tool to grow professionally, creating a network of support throughout the career. The mentoring process consists of evidence-based steps to guide critical care mentors and mentees and pair them with each other according to the correct selection and matching of participants. In order to focus on the active role of a young intensivist selected as a mentee at any level and to support their success in a mentoring relationship, the NEXT Committee of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) developed 2012 a mentoring program. The critical steps of the mentoring program start from establishing a policy and program objectives, passing through the selection of participants, and matching with mentors up to the definition of the personal development plan supported by checklists, worksheets, and evaluation forms. The present manuscript provides key steps and tips for a good, essential based on our experience in the ESICM NEXT-Mentoring Program so that they guide for future mentoring programs conducted by other scientific societies. In addition, we discuss common challenges and how to avoid them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Anaesthesist is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Medizinische Klinik: Intensivmedizin & Notfallmedizin is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background and Objectives: Intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) is one of the most frequent neuromuscular complications in critically ill patients. We conducted a global survey to evaluate the current practices of diagnostics, treatment and prevention in patients with ICU-AW. Materials and Methods: A pre-survey was created with international experts. After revision, the final survey was endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) using the online platform SurveyMonkey®. In 27 items, we addressed strategies of diagnostics, therapy and prevention. An invitation link was sent by email to all ESICM members. Furthermore, the survey was available on the ESICM homepage. Results: A total of 154 healthcare professionals from 39 countries participated in the survey. An ICU-AW screening protocol was used by 20% (28/140) of participants. Forty-four percent (62/141) of all participants reported performing routine screening for ICU-AW, using clinical examination as the method of choice (124/141, 87.9%). Almost 63% (84/134) of the participants reported using current treatment strategies for patients with ICU-AW. The use of treatment and prevention strategies differed between intensivists and non-intensivists regarding the reduction in sedatives (80.0% vs. 52.6%, p = 0.002), neuromuscular blocking agents (76.4% vs. 50%, p = 0.004), corticosteroids (69.1% vs. 37.2%, p < 0.001) and glycemic control regimes (50.9% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.002). Mobilization and physical activity are the most frequently reported treatment strategies for ICU-AW (111/134, 82.9%). The availability of physiotherapists (92/134, 68.7%) and the lack of knowledge about ICU-AW within the medical team (83/134, 61.9%) were the main obstacles to the implementation of the strategies. The necessity to develop guidelines for the screening, diagnosing, treatment and prevention of ICU-AW was recognized by 95% (127/133) of participants. Conclusions: A great heterogeneity regarding diagnostics, treatment and prevention of ICU-AW was reported internationally. Comprehensive guidelines with evidence-based recommendations for ICU-AW management are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: Ten 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Immobilisation predicts adverse outcomes in patients in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Attempts to mobilise critically ill patients early after surgery are frequently restricted, but we tested whether early mobilisation leads to improved mobility, decreased SICU length of stay, and increased functional independence of patients at hospital discharge.Methods: We did a multicentre, international, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial in SICUs of five university hospitals in Austria (n=1), Germany (n=1), and the USA (n=3). Eligible patients (aged 18 years or older, who had been mechanically ventilated for <48 h, and were expected to require mechanical ventilation for ≥24 h) were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of a stratified block randomisation via restricted web platform to standard of care (control) or early, goal-directed mobilisation using an inter-professional approach of closed-loop communication and the SICU optimal mobilisation score (SOMS) algorithm (intervention), which describes patients' mobilisation capacity on a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 (no mobilisation) to 4 (ambulation). We had three main outcomes hierarchically tested in a prespecified order: the mean SOMS level patients achieved during their SICU stay (primary outcome), and patient's length of stay on SICU and the mini-modified functional independence measure score (mmFIM) at hospital discharge (both secondary outcomes). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01363102).Findings: Between July 1, 2011, and Nov 4, 2015, we randomly assigned 200 patients to receive standard treatment (control; n=96) or intervention (n=104). Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the intervention improved the mobilisation level (mean achieved SOMS 2·2 [SD 1·0] in intervention group vs 1·5 [0·8] in control group, p<0·0001), decreased SICU length of stay (mean 7 days [SD 5-12] in intervention group vs 10 days [6-15] in control group, p=0·0054), and improved functional mobility at hospital discharge (mmFIM score 8 [4-8] in intervention group vs 5 [2-8] in control group, p=0·0002). More adverse events were reported in the intervention group (25 cases [2·8%]) than in the control group (ten cases [0·8%]); no serious adverse events were observed. Before hospital discharge 25 patients died (17 [16%] in the intervention group, eight [8%] in the control group). 3 months after hospital discharge 36 patients died (21 [22%] in the intervention group, 15 [17%] in the control group).Interpretation: Early, goal-directed mobilisation improved patient mobilisation throughout SICU admission, shortened patient length of stay in the SICU, and improved patients' functional mobility at hospital discharge.Funding: Jeffrey and Judy Buzen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Correction to: Intensive Care Med (2022) 48:227-230 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06591-... In this article the author name Mellinghoff was incorrectly written as Mellinhgoff. The original article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06591-z. [Extracted from the article]

Critical comment on the review by Okada et al. on the effect of early versus delayed mobilization because of their definition of early mobilization as mobilization within a week of ICU admission in contrast to current evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]