An evidence-based guideline on early mobilization of mechanically ventilated patients

Abstract

Background Severe impairment of physiologic functioning brings the focus of intensive care unit (ICU) on the reversal of acute organ failure which will threaten one’s survival if it is left untreated (Morris, 2007). Providing respiratory support to majority of ICU patients, mechanical ventilation (MV) is a life saving intervention. MV patients constitute one-third of ICU patients worldwide and 46% of them are put on ventilator support more than 24 hours having the mean duration ranged from 15.4 to 33.2 days (Adler & Malone, 2012).

The aim of ICU care places most of the attention on resuscitation and survival while the neuromuscular functioning is often overlooked as raised by a number of recent studies. Poor physical functioning was reported by all the patients due to loss of muscle mass, muscle weakness and fatigue (Herridge et al., 2011). Only 50% of them got employed 1 year after recovery while the rest of them were still unemployed because of persistent fatigue, poor functional status like foot drop and large joint immobility (Herridge at al., 2011).

ICU-acquired weakness accounts for neuropathies and myopathies after recovery from critically illness and respiratory failure as manifested by loss of body mass, severe weakness and physical dysfunction (Cheung et al., 2006). De Jonghe and colleagues (2002) found that 25% of MV patients developed the ICU-acquired weakness and they determined MV as one of the key etiologies. Kasper and colleagues (2002) stressed that muscle atrophy happens within a few hours of bed rest having 4% to 5% depreciation of muscle strength for one week bed rest. Moreover, insulin resistance appears after merely 5 days of bed rest. On the other hand, immobility interferes baroreceptors bringing hypotension and tachycardia, giving rise to reduced cardiac output and gaseous exchange therefore deterioration of cardiac function (Convertino, Bloomfield & Greenleaf, 1997). It is obvious that a viscous cycle is present while leaving survivors from recovery of critical illness immobilized.

Mobilizing MV patients can train up their limb power and their ADL ability (Burtin et al., 2009; Chiang, Wang, Wu, Wu, & Wu, 2005; Martin, Hincapie, Nimchuk, Gaughan, & Criner, 2005). Burtin and colleagues (2009) illustrated that patients receiving mobilization program had a better score in SF-36PF showing the attainment of better quality of life (QOL). Early mobilization can increase the number of day of ventilator free (Schweickert et al., 2009) and shortening ICU and hospital length of stay (Morris et al., 2008).

Purpose The dissertation is aiming at seeking for the best evidence to establish an evidence – based mobilization guideline for those mechanically ventilated patients. The goal is to optimizing the physical outcomes of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.

Method The three electronic databases including Medline (Ovid SP), CINAHL (Ovid SP), PudMed and Cochrane Library were searched through while doing the systematic search of scientific literature. Subsequently, five articles confining to the inclusion criteria were sieved in the literature review and evidence extraction was performed. Quality assessment of the 5 studies was done using a critical appraisal tool derived by Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) (2008) and thereafter an evidence-based guideline for early mobilization of the mechanically ventilated patients was established. An implementation plan was then set up which comprised of the communication plan between different level of stakeholders of ICU and the pilot testing. Apart from communicating with the stakeholders, the plan also delineated the way of initiating, guiding and sustaining the change. A pilot study was planned to execute in order to test the sufficiency of training workshop, determine the feasibility of the mobilization protocol and the evaluation plan.

Lastly, an evaluation plan was considered to assess the success of mobilization guideline in terms of patient outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes and organizational outcomes.