Early mobilisation in Windhoek intensive care units: Practices, attitudes and barriers.

IF 1.2 Q4 REHABILITATION
South African Journal of Physiotherapy Pub Date : 2025-01-31 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.4102/sajp.v81i1.2118
Ilse du Plessis, Savarna Francis, Brenda Morrow
{"title":"Early mobilisation in Windhoek intensive care units: Practices, attitudes and barriers.","authors":"Ilse du Plessis, Savarna Francis, Brenda Morrow","doi":"10.4102/sajp.v81i1.2118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early mobilisation (EM) of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) has gained significant attention because of its potential to improve patient outcomes. Despite the recognised benefits of EM, implementation remains inconsistent.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To describe the knowledge, attitudes and practices of healthcare professionals regarding EM of critically ill patients in Windhoek.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A descriptive, cross-sectional design using a self-administered survey was conducted in Windhoek, Namibia, targeting nurses, doctors and physiotherapists working in private ICUs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 174 surveys were distributed, with a response rate of 24.1% (<i>n</i> = 42). Respondents included 21 nurses, 5 doctors and 13 physiotherapists. Most participants underestimated the incidence of ICU-acquired weakness and reported unfamiliarity with EM literature (<i>n</i> = 19, 51.4%). Furthermore, 25 respondents (67.6%) reported that patients were not automatically assessed for mobilisation, the majority reported requiring a doctor's referral (<i>n</i> = 31, 83.8%). Mobility practices were conservative, especially when patients were intubated or in the presence of radial and femoral catheters. Major patient-level barriers included medical instability (<i>n</i> = 24, 72.7%) and excessive sedation (<i>n</i> = 18, 54.5%); whereas institutional barriers were the requirement for a doctor's referral (<i>n</i> = 22, 64.7%) and no written guidelines or protocols for mobilisation (<i>n</i> = 16, 47.1%). Provider level barriers were that mobility is not perceived as important by some individuals (<i>n</i> = 18, 78.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study revealed knowledge gaps, conservative mobility practices and numerous barriers to EM implementation at the patient, provider and institutional levels.</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>The findings highlight the need for targeted education, training programmes, standardised mobility protocols and the establishment of a dedicated mobility champion to promote EM in Windhoek ICUs.</p>","PeriodicalId":44180,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":"81 1","pages":"2118"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11830905/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/sajp.v81i1.2118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Early mobilisation (EM) of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) has gained significant attention because of its potential to improve patient outcomes. Despite the recognised benefits of EM, implementation remains inconsistent.

Objectives: To describe the knowledge, attitudes and practices of healthcare professionals regarding EM of critically ill patients in Windhoek.

Method: A descriptive, cross-sectional design using a self-administered survey was conducted in Windhoek, Namibia, targeting nurses, doctors and physiotherapists working in private ICUs.

Results: A total of 174 surveys were distributed, with a response rate of 24.1% (n = 42). Respondents included 21 nurses, 5 doctors and 13 physiotherapists. Most participants underestimated the incidence of ICU-acquired weakness and reported unfamiliarity with EM literature (n = 19, 51.4%). Furthermore, 25 respondents (67.6%) reported that patients were not automatically assessed for mobilisation, the majority reported requiring a doctor's referral (n = 31, 83.8%). Mobility practices were conservative, especially when patients were intubated or in the presence of radial and femoral catheters. Major patient-level barriers included medical instability (n = 24, 72.7%) and excessive sedation (n = 18, 54.5%); whereas institutional barriers were the requirement for a doctor's referral (n = 22, 64.7%) and no written guidelines or protocols for mobilisation (n = 16, 47.1%). Provider level barriers were that mobility is not perceived as important by some individuals (n = 18, 78.3%).

Conclusion: Our study revealed knowledge gaps, conservative mobility practices and numerous barriers to EM implementation at the patient, provider and institutional levels.

Clinical implications: The findings highlight the need for targeted education, training programmes, standardised mobility protocols and the establishment of a dedicated mobility champion to promote EM in Windhoek ICUs.

温得和克重症监护室的早期动员:做法、态度和障碍。
背景:重症监护病房(icu)危重患者的早期动员(EM)因其改善患者预后的潜力而获得了极大的关注。尽管新兴市场带来了公认的好处,但实施情况仍不一致。目的:描述在温得和克医疗保健专业人员的知识,态度和做法,对危重病人的EM。方法:采用描述性横断面设计,采用自我管理的调查在纳米比亚温得和克进行,目标是在私立icu工作的护士、医生和物理治疗师。结果:共发放问卷174份,回复率为24.1% (n = 42)。受访者包括21名护士、5名医生及13名物理治疗师。大多数参与者低估了icu获得性虚弱的发生率,并且报告不熟悉EM文献(n = 19, 51.4%)。此外,25名应答者(67.6%)报告称,没有自动评估患者的动员情况,大多数报告需要医生转诊(n = 31, 83.8%)。活动练习是保守的,特别是当患者插管或桡动脉和股动脉导管存在时。患者层面的主要障碍包括医疗不稳定(n = 24, 72.7%)和过度镇静(n = 18, 54.5%);而制度障碍是需要医生转诊(n = 22,64.7%)和没有书面的动员指南或方案(n = 16, 47.1%)。提供者层面的障碍是,一些人认为移动性不重要(n = 18, 78.3%)。结论:我们的研究揭示了知识差距、保守的流动性做法以及在患者、提供者和机构层面实施EM的许多障碍。临床意义:研究结果强调需要有针对性的教育、培训计划、标准化的移动协议和建立专门的移动冠军,以促进温得和克icu的EM。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
35
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信