Level of function mobility scale for nurse‐driven early mobilisation in people with acute cardiovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are currently no validated tools that are reliable and easy to use for nurses to assess mobility in people with acute cardiovascular disease in the Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit (CICU). METHODS: A multidisciplinary team at an academic tertiary care centre developed the Level of Function (LOF) Mobility Scale for use in a nurse-driven early progressive mobilisation in the CICU. To determine inter-rater reliability, the prehospital and admission LOF were assessed independently by two CICU nurses. Pairwise comparisons between raters were evaluated using Cohen's kappa statistic. To determine convergence validity, the LOF and Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care 6-Clicks score upon admission were compared with Spearman's correlation. To determine feasibility, a 9-item mobility scale questionnaire was distributed to CICU nurses with and without experience using the LOF Mobility Scale. The STROBE reporting guidelines were used. RESULTS: The LOF Mobility Scale had good inter-rater reliability for assessment of LOF prior to hospitalisation (N = 131, kappa = 0.66, p < .001) and at the time of CICU admission (N = 131, kappa = 0.71, p < .001). There was a moderate correlation (N = 79 observations; correlation coefficient = 0.525; p < .01) between the bedside nurses LOF and the 6-Clicks score. All nurses surveyed (N = 54; 100%) thought that the LOF Mobility Scale was clear and unambiguous, the LOFs were well-defined and the scale was an appropriate length. Nearly all of the nurses with experience using the scale (N = 22/24; 92%) felt that the scale took less than one minute to complete, compared with about half (N = 14/30; 47%) in the group of nurses without experience using the scale. CONCLUSION: The LOF Mobility Scale is reliable and feasible for mobility assessment in a nurse-driven early progressive mobilisation programme in patients with acute cardiovascular disease in the CICU. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: A nurse-driven EM programme can be implemented in the CICU.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".