Analysis of adherence to an early mobilization protocol in an intensive care unit: Data collected prospectively over a period of three years by the clinical information system / Análisis de adherencia a un protocolo de movilización precoz en una unidad de cuidados intensivos: datos recopilados prospectivamente durante un periodo de tres años por el sistema de información clínica

Objective To determinate the adherence and barriers of our early mobilization protocol in patients who had received mechanical ventilation >48h in routine daily practice through clinical information system during all Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay. Design Observational and prospective cohort study. Setting Polyvalent ICU over a three-year period (2017–2019). Patients Adult patients on mechanical ventilation >48h who met the inclusion criteria for the early mobilization protocol. Interventions None. Main variables of interest Demographics, adherence to the protocol and putative hidden adherence, total number of mobilizations, barriers, artificial airway/ventilatory support at each mobilization level and adverse events. Results We analyzed 3269 stay-days from 388 patients with median age of 63 (51–72) years, median APACHE II 23 (18–29) and median ICU stay of 10.1 (6.2–16.5) days. Adherence to the protocol was 56.6% (1850 stay-days), but patients were mobilized in only 32.2% (1472) of all stay-days. The putative hidden adherence was 15.6% (509 stay-days) which would increase adherence to 72.2%. The most common reasons for not mobilizing patients were failure to meeting the criteria for clinical stability in 241 (42%) stay-days and unavailability of physiotherapists in 190 (33%) stay-days. Adverse events occurred in only 6 (0.4%) stay-days. Conclusions Data form Clinical Information System showed although adherence was high, patients were mobilized in only one-third of all stay-days. Knowing the specific reason why patient were not mobilized in each stay-day allow to develop concrete decisions to increase the number of mobilizations (AU)

Objetivo Determinar la adherencia y barreras del protocolo de movilización precoz en pacientes que recibieron ventilación mecánica >48 horas en la práctica diaria habitual a través del sistema de información clínica durante toda su estancia en Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos (UCI). Diseño Estudio observacional y prospectivo. Ámbito UCI polivalente durante un periodo de tres años (2017-2019). Pacientes Se incluyeron pacientes adultos en ventilación mecánica > 48 horas que cumplieron los criterios de inclusión del protocolo. Intervenciones Ninguna. Variables principales Se aplicaron variables demográficas, adherencia y adherencia oculta, número total de movilizaciones, barreras, tipo vía aérea artificial/soporte ventilatorio en cada nivel de movilización y eventos adversos. Resultados Analizamos 3.269 días de estancia de 388 pacientes con una mediana de edad de 63 (51-72) años, mediana de APACHE-II 23(18-29) y estancia en UCI mediana de 10,1 (6,2-16,5) días. La adherencia al protocolo fue del 56,6% (1.850 días de estancia), pero los pacientes se movilizaron solo el 32,2% (1.472) de todos los días de estancia. La adherencia oculta fue del 15,6% (509 días de estancia), aumentando la adherencia al 72,2%. Las causas más comunes para la no movilización fueron el incumplimiento de los criterios de estabilidad clínica en 241 (42%) días de estancia y la falta de disponibilidad de fisioterapeutas en 190 (33%) días de estancia. Los eventos adversos ocurrieron en solo 6 (0,4%) días de estancia. Conclusiones Aunque la adherencia fue alta, los pacientes se movilizaron en solo un tercio de todos los días de estancia. Conocer el motivo específico por el cual los pacientes no fueron movilizados permite desarrollar decisiones concretas para incrementar el número de movilizaciones (AU)

Analysis of adherence to an early mobilization protocol in an intensive care unit: Data collected prospectively over a period of three years by the clinical information system.

OBJECTIVE: To determinate the adherence and barriers of our early mobilization protocol in patients who had received mechanical ventilation >48h in routine daily practice through clinical information system during all Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay. DESIGN: Observational and prospective cohort study. SETTING: Polyvalent ICU over a three-year period (2017-2019). PATIENTS: Adult patients on mechanical ventilation >48h who met the inclusion criteria for the early mobilization protocol. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST: Demographics, adherence to the protocol and putative hidden adherence, total number of mobilizations, barriers, artificial airway/ventilatory support at each mobilization level and adverse events. RESULTS: We analyzed 3269 stay-days from 388 patients with median age of 63 (51-72) years, median APACHE II 23 (18-29) and median ICU stay of 10.1 (6.2-16.5) days. Adherence to the protocol was 56.6% (1850 stay-days), but patients were mobilized in only 32.2% (1472) of all stay-days. The putative hidden adherence was 15.6% (509 stay-days) which would increase adherence to 72.2%. The most common reasons for not mobilizing patients were failure to meeting the criteria for clinical stability in 241 (42%) stay-days and unavailability of physiotherapists in 190 (33%) stay-days. Adverse events occurred in only 6 (0.4%) stay-days. CONCLUSIONS: Data form Clinical Information System showed although adherence was high, patients were mobilized in only one-third of all stay-days. Knowing the specific reason why patient were not mobilized in each stay-day allow to develop concrete decisions to increase the number of mobilizations.

Estrategias para fomentar la higiene de manos en la atención ambulatoria / Interventions aimed to improve clinical handwashing in an outpatient setting

Introducción: se realizó un análisis de la evidencia disponible sobre intervenciones orientadas a mejorar la adherencia al lavado de manos, para generar recomendaciones para los centros de atención en salud ambulatoria.Materiales y métodos: se realizó una búsqueda en Pubmed, Embase y Epistemonikos, y en las referencias de guías sobre el tema, seleccionando aquellos estudios no observacionales en que se realizaran intervenciones para aumentar la adherencia al lavado de manos en atención en salud. Se clasificaron las estrategias descritas según tipo de intervención, y se evaluaron según su efectividad en mejorar la adherencia al lavado de manos y el seguimiento en el tiempo.Resultados: se seleccionaron 34 estudios experimentales prospectivos, que se clasificaron en 10 grupos según el tipo de intervención realizada, y se evaluaron según efectividad y seguimiento en una escala del I al VII. 24 de 34 estudios mostraron un aumento estadísticamente significativo de la adherencia al lavado de manos mayor al 15% desde el basal o en comparación al grupo control, correspondiendo en su mayoría a estrategias multimodales y de feedback. Discusión: las intervenciones más efectivas para mejorar la adherencia al lavado de manos fueron las que incluían abordajes multimodales y las que incluían feedback. Se hace urgente generar mayor evidencia sobre esta temática en el contexto de atención ambulatoria.

Introduction: To analyze the available evidence on interventions aimed at improving adherence to handwashing, to generate re-commendations for outpatient health care centers. Methods: A search was made in Pubmed, Embase and Epistemonikos, and in the references of guides on the subject, selecting those non-observational studies in which interventions were carried out to increase adherence to handwashing in health care. The strategies described were classified according to the type of intervention, and evaluated according to their effectiveness in improving adherence to handwashing, and its follow-up time afterward. Results: 34 prospective experimental studies were selected, which were classified into 10 groups according to the type of intervention performed, and were evaluated according to effectiveness and follow-up on a scale from I to VII. 24 of 34 studies showed a statistically significant increase in handwashing adherence greater than 15% from baseline or compared to the control group, corresponding mostly to multimodal and feedback strategies. Discussion: The most effective interventions to improve adherence to handwashing were those that included multimodal approaches and the ones that included feedback. It is urgent to generate more evidence on the subject in the context of ambulatory care.