↓ Skip to main content

Early mobilisation in intensive care units in Australia and Scotland: a prospective, observational cohort study examining mobilisation practises and barriers

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
45 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Early mobilisation in intensive care units in Australia and Scotland: a prospective, observational cohort study examining mobilisation practises and barriers
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1033-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meg E. Harrold, Lisa G. Salisbury, Steve A. Webb, Garry T. Allison

Abstract

Mobilisation of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is an area of growing research. Currently, there is little data on baseline mobilisation practises and the barriers to them for patients of all admission diagnoses. The objectives of the study were to (1) quantify and benchmark baseline levels of mobilisation in Australian and Scottish ICUs, (2) compare mobilisation practises between Australian and Scottish ICUs and (3) identify barriers to mobilisation in Australian and Scottish ICUs. We conducted a prospective, observational, cohort study with a 4-week inception period. Patients were censored for follow-up upon ICU discharge or after 28 days, whichever occurred first. Patients were included if they were >18 years of age, admitted to an ICU and received mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Ten tertiary ICUs in Australia and nine in Scotland participated in the study. The Australian cohort had a large proportion of patients admitted for cardiothoracic surgery (43.3 %), whereas the Scottish cohort had none. Therefore, comparison analysis was done after exclusion of patients admitted for cardiothoracic surgery. In total, 60.2 % of the 347 patients across 10 Australian ICUs and 40.1 % of the 167 patients across 9 Scottish ICUs mobilised during their ICU stay (p < 0.001). Patients in the Australian cohort were more likely to mobilise than patients in the Scottish cohort (hazard ratio 1.83, 95 % confidence interval 1.38-2.42). However, the percentage of episodes of mobilisation where patients were receiving mechanical ventilation was higher in the Scottish cohort (41.1 % vs 16.3 %, p < 0.001). Sedation was the most commonly reported barrier to mobilisation in both the Australian and Scottish cohorts. Physiological instability and the presence of an endotracheal tube were also frequently reported barriers. This is the first study to benchmark baseline practise of early mobilisation internationally, and it demonstrates variation in early mobilisation practises between Australia and Scotland.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 188 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 19%
Student > Master 29 15%
Other 18 9%
Researcher 13 7%
Student > Postgraduate 11 6%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 51 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 64 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 44 23%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Psychology 2 1%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 57 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,370,781
of 25,529,543 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,176
of 6,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,610
of 396,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#73
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,529,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,580 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 396,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.