The PhLIP team: Feasibility of a physiotherapy-led intensive prone positioning team initiative during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a surge of patients with refractory hypoxaemic respiratory failure being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Prone positioning can improve oxygenation but requires a team of skilled personnel to complete safely. Critical care physiotherapists (PTs) are ideally suited to lead proning teams, due to their expertise in moving critically unwell, invasively ventilated patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the feasibility of implementing a physiotherapy-led intensive proning (PhLIP) team to support the critical care team during surges. METHODS: This study involves descriptive evaluation of feasibility and implementation of the PhLIP team, a novel model of care, during the Delta wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, through a retrospective, observational audit of PhLIP team activity, ICU clinical activity, and a description of clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Between 17 September and 19 November 2021, 93 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU. Fifty-one patients (55%) were positioned prone, a median [interquartile range] 2 [2, 5] times, for a mean (±standard deviation) duration of 16 (±2) h, across 161 episodes. Twenty-three PTs were upskilled and deployed to the PhLIP team, adding 2.0 equivalent full time to the daily service. Ninety-four percent of prone episodes (154) were led by the PhLIP PTs with a median 4 [interquartile range: 2, 8] turns per day. Potential airway adverse events occurred on three occasions (1.8%) and included an endotracheal tube leak, displacement, and obstruction. Each incident was promptly managed without prolonged impact on the patient. No manual handling injuries were reported. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a physiotherapy-led proning team was safe and feasible and can release critical care-trained medical and nursing staff to other duties in the ICU.

Comparison of 6-Month Outcomes of Survivors of COVID-19 versus Non-COVID-19 Critical Illness.

Rationale: The outcomes of survivors of critical illness due to coronavirus disease (COVID-19) compared with non-COVID-19 are yet to be established. Objectives: We aimed to investigate new disability at 6 months in mechanically ventilated patients admitted to Australian ICUs with COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19. Methods: We included critically ill patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 from two prospective observational studies. Patients were eligible if they were adult (age ⩾ 8 yr) and received ⩾24 hours of mechanical ventilation. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were eligible with a positive laboratory PCR test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Measurements and Main Results: Demographic, intervention, and hospital outcome data were obtained from electronic medical records. Survivors were contacted by telephone for functional outcomes with trained outcome assessors using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Between March 6, 2020, and April 21, 2021, 120 critically ill patients with COVID-19, and between August 2017 and January 2019, 199 critically ill patients without COVID-19, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Patients with COVID-19 were older (median [interquartile range], 62 [55-71] vs. 58 [44-69] yr; P = 0.019) with a lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (17 [13-20] vs. 19 [15-23]; P = 0.011). Although duration of ventilation was longer in patients with COVID-19 than in those without COVID-19 (12 [5-19] vs. 4.8 [2.3-8.8] d; P < 0.001), 180-day mortality was similar between the groups (39/120 [32.5%] vs. 70/199 [35.2%]; P = 0.715). The incidence of death or new disability at 180 days was similar (58/93 [62.4%] vs. 99/150 [66/0%]; P = 0.583). Conclusions: At 6 months, there was no difference in new disability for patients requiring mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04401254).

The impact of COVID-19 critical illness on new disability, functional outcomes and return to work at 6 months: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are few reports of new functional impairment following critical illness from COVID-19. We aimed to describe the incidence of death or new disability, functional impairment and changes in health-related quality of life of patients after COVID-19 critical illness at 6 months. METHODS: In a nationally representative, multicenter, prospective cohort study of COVID-19 critical illness, we determined the prevalence of death or new disability at 6 months, the primary outcome. We measured mortality, new disability and return to work with changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12L (WHODAS) and health status with the EQ5D-5LTM. RESULTS: Of 274 eligible patients, 212 were enrolled from 30 hospitals. The median age was 61 (51-70) years, and 124 (58.5%) patients were male. At 6 months, 43/160 (26.9%) patients died and 42/108 (38.9%) responding survivors reported new disability. Compared to pre-illness, the WHODAS percentage score worsened (mean difference (MD), 10.40% [95% CI 7.06-13.77]; p < 0.001). Thirteen (11.4%) survivors had not returned to work due to poor health. There was a decrease in the EQ-5D-5LTM utility score (MD, - 0.19 [- 0.28 to - 0.10]; p < 0.001). At 6 months, 82 of 115 (71.3%) patients reported persistent symptoms. The independent predictors of death or new disability were higher severity of illness and increased frailty. CONCLUSIONS: At six months after COVID-19 critical illness, death and new disability was substantial. Over a third of survivors had new disability, which was widespread across all areas of functioning. Clinical trial registration NCT04401254 May 26, 2020.