Search

To examine whether extended compared to standard level of physiotherapy is feasible and has beneficial effects on physical function in ICU survivors. This prospective pilot study with a before and after design included patients discharged from ICU to a surgical ward. The comparison group were recruited between January and April 2019 and received standard level of physiotherapy. The intervention group were recruited between May and December 2019 and received extended physiotherapy, corresponding to 50% additional physiotherapist, working 4 hours per weekday. The intervention participants received an individual rehabilitation plan developed in collaboration with a ward-based physiotherapist, and an extended number of sessions provided by the extra resource included practicing individualized exercises, for example walking and stair climbing. Physical function was measured with the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) at ICU discharge, during hospital stay and discharge. Group differences were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U-test and Chi2 test. Out of 46 eligible patients, 39 (85%) fulfilled the study (comparison n = 12, intervention n = 27) and were included in the final analyses. No adverse events occurred, and the attendance rate was high (98.5%). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding physical function, hospital stay, and readmissions, but there were tendencies to better outcomes in all these parameters in favor of the intervention group. Additionally, patients in the intervention group had statistically significantly higher scores in the CPAx items "transferring from bed to chair" (median 5 vs 4, p =.039) and "stepping" (median 5 vs 4, p =.005) at hospital discharge. This pilot study indicates that extended physiotherapy after ICU discharge is feasible and does not entail patient safety risks. However, determining the potential beneficial effects for the patients remains to be evaluated in a larger trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To translate and culturally adapt the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool into Swedish and to test the inter-rater reliability of the Swedish version in critically ill patients. This is an observational study. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation was performed in line with international recommendations, including forward and backward translation and expert round table discussions. The inter-rater reliability of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool – Swedish was then explored in 50 critically ill adult patients, pragmatically recruited, in a University Hospital clinical setting. Reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient for aggregated scores and quadratic weighted Cohen's kappa analysis for individual items The expert round table discussion group agreed that the translation was a satisfactory equivalent to the original version and applicable for use within the clinical setting. Reliability of aggregated scores and individual items were very good (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.97 and quadric weighted kappa values ranging from 0.88 to 0.98). The measurement error for aggregated scores was low, with a standard error of measurement of 1.79, smallest detectable change of 4.95, and limits of agreement of 5.20 and −4.76. The percentage agreement for individual items ranged from 64% to 88%. The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool – Swedish was found applicable and appropriate for assessment of functioning in critically ill patients in an acute setting in Sweden, and it displayed high inter-rater reliability. This implies that the Swedish version can be used as assessment tool within intensive care and acute wards in Sweden. There is a lack of validated instruments to test the functional status of critically ill patients in Sweden. The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool is validated and reliable in English. The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool – Swedish is considered reliable for use by physiotherapist in intensive care settings in Sweden. The Swedish version is feasible for use within clinical practice due to its simplicity and strong clinical relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]