Assessment of mobilization capacity in 10 different ICU scenarios by different professions.

Background: Mobilization of intensive care patients is a multi-professional task. Aim of this study was to explore how different professions working at Intensive Care Units (ICU) estimate the mobility capacity using the ICU Mobility Score in 10 different scenarios.
Methods: Ten fictitious patient-scenarios and guideline-related knowledge were assessed using an online survey. Critical care team members in German-speaking countries were invited to participate. All datasets including professional data and at least one scenario were analyzed. Kruskal Wallis test was used for the individual scenarios, while a linear mixed-model was used over all responses.
Results: In total, 515 of 788 (65%) participants could be evaluated. Physicians (p = 0.001) and nurses (p = 0.002) selected a lower ICU Mobility Score (-0.7 95% CI -1.1 to -0.3 and -0.4 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2, respectively) than physical therapists, while other specialists did not (p = 0.81). Participants who classified themselves as experts or could define early mobilization in accordance to the "S2e guideline: positioning and early mobilisation in prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary disorders" correctly selected higher mobilization levels (0.2 95% CI 0.0 to 0.4, p = 0.049 and 0.3 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5, p = 0.002, respectively).
Conclusion: Different professions scored the mobilization capacity of patients differently, with nurses and physicians estimating significantly lower capacity than physical therapists. The exact knowledge of guidelines and recommendations, such as the definition of early mobilization, independently lead to a higher score. Interprofessional education, interprofessional rounds and mobilization activities could further enhance knowledge and practice of mobilization in the critical care team.
Competing Interests: CH is self-employed and received honoraria for e.g. professional talks and consulting from different companies. For this Manuscript are no conflicts of interest to declare. PN reports no conflict of interest. MB received research support from MSD (Haar, Germany) not related to this manuscript, received honoraria from giving lectures from GE Healthcare (Helsinki, Finland), MSD (Haar, Germany), Grünenthal (Aachen, Germany). RD received honoraria for professional talks and consulting from different companies. For this Manuscript are no conflicts of interest to declare. SF reports no conflict of interest. AK received honoraria for professional talks and consulting from different companies. For this Manuscript are no conflicts of interest to declare. BU reports no conflict of interest. SJ Schaller reports grants and non-financial support from ESICM (Brussels, Belgium), Fresenius (Germany), Liberate Medical LLC (Crestwood, USA), STIMIT AG (Nidau, Switzerland), MSD (Haar, Germany) as well as from Technical University of Munich, Germany, from national (e.g. DGAI) and international (e.g. ESICM) medical societies (or their congress organizers) in the field of anesthesiology and intensive care, personal fees and non-financial support from Bavarian Medical Association, all outside the submitted work; SJS holds stocks in small amounts from Alphabeth Inc., Bayer AG, Rhön-Klinikum AG, and Siemens AG. These did not have any influence on this study. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.