Early Mobilization of Patients With External Ventricular Drains: Does Therapist Experience Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Growing evidence supports the benefits and safety of early mobilization of patients in intensive care units. Frequently cited barriers to early mobilization are insufficient staffing and training. This study examines the number of professionals and years of physical therapy or occupational therapy experience needed to mobilize patients in neuro-intensive care units with external ventricular drains (EVDs). Design: The study was a retrospective review of a prospective quality improvement database, which includes 185 encounters with 90 patients with EVDs from June 2014 through July 2015. Results: Ninety-five percent of encounters required at most 2 professionals for mobilization. No evidence of association between number of people required to mobilize and highest activity achieved was found. Neither the number of people to mobilize patients nor the primary therapist's years of experience were associated with the type of activity achieved or the occurrence of an adverse event. Conclusion: This analysis suggests that patients with EVDs in the neuro-intensive care unit can be safely and efficiently mobilized by physical therapists and occupational therapists of varying levels of clinical experience. Early mobilization of patients with EVDs may demand fewer staff resources than perceived by clinicians.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".