Physical Therapists' Clinical Reasoning and Decision-Making Processes When Mobilizing Patients Who Are Critically Ill: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Although mobilization is a widely practiced intervention for patients who are critically ill, the clinical reasoning and decision-making processes used by physical therapists to maximize its effectiveness warrants elucidation. This study's purpose was to investigate factors guiding physical therapists' clinical reasoning and decision-making processes when initiating and progressing mobilization in patients who are critically ill. Methods: In a 2-phased qualitative research design, 12 physical therapists working in a tertiary care university hospital were observed before, during, and after a mobilization session with 1 patient, followed by a semistructured interview. Results: Six categories (patient; intensive care unit-context; physical therapist; transfer; FITT parameters [frequency, intensity, type, and time]; and expected outcome) and 4 encompassing factors (safety and well-being; continuous assessment and intervention intertwined; individualized and response-driven intervention; and barriers and solutions) emerged as important in guiding participants' clinical reasoning when mobilizing their patients. Conclusions: The categories and encompassing factors identified, influenced, and guided participants in their clinical reasoning and decision-making when they initiated mobilization and progressed its parameters. The approach was goal-oriented and tailored to each patient's needs based on moment-to-moment evaluation of responses. The categories and factors that emerged favored a response-driven rather than a protocol-driven approach to mobilizing patients who are critically ill.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".