Prevalence of Acute Rehabilitation for Kids in the PICU: A Canadian Multicenter Point Prevalence Study*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate mobilization practices, barriers, and mobility-related adverse events in Canadian PICUs. DESIGN: National 2-day point prevalence study. SETTING: Thirteen PICUs across Canada. PATIENTS: Children with a minimum 72-hour PICU length of stay on the allocated study day. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes of interest were the prevalence and nature of mobilization activities, rehabilitation resources, adverse events, and factors associated with out-of-bed mobility and therapist-provided mobility. Two PICUs (15%) had early mobilization practice guidelines, and one PICU (8%) reported a formal process for engaging families in the mobilization of patients. The prevalence of mobilization was 110 of 137 patient-days (80%). The commonest activity was out-of-bed mobility (87/137; 64% patient-days); there was no active mobilization on 46 patient-days (34%). Therapists provided mobility on 33% of patient-days. Mobility was most commonly facilitated by nurses (74% events) and family (49% events). Family participation was strongly associated with out-of-bed mobility (odds ratio 6.4; p = 0.001). Intubated, mechanically ventilated patients were mobilized out-of-bed on 18 of 50 patient-days (36%). However, the presence of an endotracheal tube, vasoactive infusions, and age greater than or equal to 3 years were independently associated with not being mobilized out-of-bed. Barriers were reported on 58 of 137 patient-days (42%), and adverse events occurred in 22 of 387 mobility events (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Mobilization is common and safe, and the majority of children in Canadian PICUs are being mobilized out-of-bed, even when mechanically ventilated. Family engagement in PICU-based rehabilitation is increasing. This study provides encouraging evidence that common barriers can be overcome in order to safely mobilize children in PICUs.
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 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".