Intensive care unit mobility practices in Australia and New Zealand: A point prevalence study

Objectives: To develop a comprehensive set of items describing physiotherapy mobilisation practices for critically ill patients, and to document current practices in intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand, focusing on patients having >48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Design: Prospec...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Berney, S., Harrold, Megan, Webb, S., Seppelt, I., Patman, Shane, Thomas, P., Denehy, L.
Format: Journal Article
Published: Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine 2013
Online Access:http://www.cicm.org.au/
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/26875
_version_ 1848752109837615104
author Berney, S.
Harrold, Megan
Webb, S.
Seppelt, I.
Patman, Shane
Thomas, P.
Denehy, L.
author_facet Berney, S.
Harrold, Megan
Webb, S.
Seppelt, I.
Patman, Shane
Thomas, P.
Denehy, L.
author_sort Berney, S.
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description Objectives: To develop a comprehensive set of items describing physiotherapy mobilisation practices for critically ill patients, and to document current practices in intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand, focusing on patients having >48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Design: Prospective, observational, multicentre, single-day, point prevalence study. Participants and setting: All patients in 38 Australian and New Zealand ICUs at 10 am on one of three designated days in 2009 and 2010. Main outcome measures: Demographic data, admission diagnosis and mobilisation practices that had occurred in the previous 24 hours. Results: 514 patients were enrolled, with 498 complete datasets. Mean age was 59.2 years (SD, 16.7 years) and 45% were mechanically ventilated. Mobilisation activities were classified into five categories that were not mutually exclusive: 140 patients (28%) completed an in-bed exercise regimen, 93 (19%) sat over the side of the bed, 182 (37%) sat out of bed, 124 (25%) stood and 89 (18%) walked. Predefined adverse events occurred on 24 occasions (5%). No patient requiring mechanical ventilation sat out of bed or walked. On the study day, 391 patients had been in ICU for > 48 hours. There were 384 complete datasets available for analysis and, of these, 332 patients (86%) were not walked. Of those not walked, 76 (23%) were in the ICU for >/=7 days. Conclusion: Patient mobilisation was shown to be low in a single-day point prevalence study. Future observational studies are required to confirm the results.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T08:03:24Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-26875
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T08:03:24Z
publishDate 2013
publisher Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-268752017-10-02T02:27:48Z Intensive care unit mobility practices in Australia and New Zealand: A point prevalence study Berney, S. Harrold, Megan Webb, S. Seppelt, I. Patman, Shane Thomas, P. Denehy, L. Objectives: To develop a comprehensive set of items describing physiotherapy mobilisation practices for critically ill patients, and to document current practices in intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand, focusing on patients having >48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Design: Prospective, observational, multicentre, single-day, point prevalence study. Participants and setting: All patients in 38 Australian and New Zealand ICUs at 10 am on one of three designated days in 2009 and 2010. Main outcome measures: Demographic data, admission diagnosis and mobilisation practices that had occurred in the previous 24 hours. Results: 514 patients were enrolled, with 498 complete datasets. Mean age was 59.2 years (SD, 16.7 years) and 45% were mechanically ventilated. Mobilisation activities were classified into five categories that were not mutually exclusive: 140 patients (28%) completed an in-bed exercise regimen, 93 (19%) sat over the side of the bed, 182 (37%) sat out of bed, 124 (25%) stood and 89 (18%) walked. Predefined adverse events occurred on 24 occasions (5%). No patient requiring mechanical ventilation sat out of bed or walked. On the study day, 391 patients had been in ICU for > 48 hours. There were 384 complete datasets available for analysis and, of these, 332 patients (86%) were not walked. Of those not walked, 76 (23%) were in the ICU for >/=7 days. Conclusion: Patient mobilisation was shown to be low in a single-day point prevalence study. Future observational studies are required to confirm the results. 2013 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/26875 http://www.cicm.org.au/ Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine fulltext
spellingShingle Berney, S.
Harrold, Megan
Webb, S.
Seppelt, I.
Patman, Shane
Thomas, P.
Denehy, L.
Intensive care unit mobility practices in Australia and New Zealand: A point prevalence study
title Intensive care unit mobility practices in Australia and New Zealand: A point prevalence study
title_full Intensive care unit mobility practices in Australia and New Zealand: A point prevalence study
title_fullStr Intensive care unit mobility practices in Australia and New Zealand: A point prevalence study
title_full_unstemmed Intensive care unit mobility practices in Australia and New Zealand: A point prevalence study
title_short Intensive care unit mobility practices in Australia and New Zealand: A point prevalence study
title_sort intensive care unit mobility practices in australia and new zealand: a point prevalence study
url http://www.cicm.org.au/
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/26875