Percieved barriers to early progressive mobilization in the ICU: Multidisciplinary perspectives in an underserved population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early progressive mobilization is the initiation of movement when a patient is hemodynamically stable, adequately oxygenated, and minimally able to participate. Early progressive mobilization has been linked to decreased morbidity and mortality as inactivity has a profound adverse effect on the brain, skin, skeletal muscle, pulmonary and cardiovascular systems. Literature supports early progressive mobilization and physical therapy as a safe and effective intervention that can have a positive impact on functional outcomes. While the benefits of early progressive mobilization in the intensive care unit have been well documented in recent years, many intensive care units are unable to effectively integrate early progressive mobilization into their daily practice. Therefore, the purpose of this project was to determine whether an educational intervention on the Early Progressive Mobilization Protocol at an urban intensive care unit in Las Vegas, Nevada affected knowledge of, skill in, and attitudes toward implementation of the protocol in practice, as well as to determine whether there was a difference in reported compliance scores among various disciplines. A pre-test survey designed to examine these variables and the reported compliance with the Early Progressive Mobilization protocol was administered. Educational sessions were provided to participants on the Early Progressive Mobilization Protocol after the pre-test. A post-test was administered after the educational session to determine the educational impact on the identified variables. Data analysis was completed using frequency distributions. Valuable insight was gained on the potential impact of targeted educational intervention. Further study is warranted to assess the effects of routine training in intensive care units with similar protocols.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".