Mobilisation practices during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A retrospective analysis (MobiCOVID)

BACKGROUND

Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients display risk factors for intensive care unit acquired weakness (ICUAW). The pandemic increased existing barriers to mobilisation. This study aimed to compare mobilisation practices in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, including adult patients admitted to one of 16 ICUs between March 2018, and November 2021. The effect of COVID-19 on mobilisation level and frequency, early mobilisation (EM) and time to active sitting position (ASP) was analysed. Subgroup analysis on COVID-19 patients and the ICU type influencing mobilisation practices was performed. Mobilisation entries were converted into the ICU mobility scale (IMS) using supervised machine learning. The groups were matched using 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 12,462 patients were included, receiving 59,415 mobilisations. After matching 611 COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were analysed. They displayed no significant difference in mobilisation frequency (0.4 vs. 0.3, p = 0.7), maximum IMS (3 vs. 3; p = 0.17), EM (43.2% vs. 37.8%; p = 0.06) or time to ASP (HR 0.95; 95% CI: 0.82, 1.09; p = 0.44). Subgroup analysis showed that patients in surge ICUs, i.e., temporarily created ICUs for COVID-19 patients during the pandemic, more commonly received EM (53.9% vs. 39.8%; p = 0.03) and reached higher maximum IMS (4 vs. 3; p = 0.03) without difference in mobilisation frequency (0.5 vs. 0.3; p = 0.32) or time to ASP (HR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.56; p = 0.36).

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 did not hinder mobilisation. Those treated in surge ICUs were more likely to receive EM and reached higher mobilisation levels.

Estimating the time needed for induction of anaesthesia and its importance in balancing anaesthetists' and surgeons' waiting times around the start of surgery

After the anaesthetist has induced anaesthesia, it is desirable that the surgeon is present and ready to start surgery, otherwise the team needs to wait for the surgeon. From another perspective, however, the surgeon does not necessarily wish to be present from the start of induction, since that process can take a variable time and the surgeon might be otherwise occupied in productive activity rather than waiting for the patient to be ready. Waiting times in the morning can therefore be a source of constant friction between anaesthetists and surgeons. In this prospective study we used the data from 718 first cases of the day, during a 4-week study period at two university hospitals, to develop a simple spreadsheet-based method to analyse the interaction of anaesthesia and surgical start time, anaesthesia technique and the probability of waiting time for anaesthetist or surgeon, respectively. This method can be used to determine the best surgical or anaesthesia start time for each case, so that the waiting time for anaesthetists and surgeons can be minimised.