MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13523: Self-guided Mobilization in the Cardiac ICU During the COVID Era

2020· article· en· W3101641355 on OpenAlexaff
Koorosh Semsar‐Kazerooni, Michael Goldfarb

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMobilizationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Intensive care unitCoronary care unitEmergency medicineCardiac function curveIntensive care medicineInternal medicineHeart failureDiseaseMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Measures instituted to prevent the spread of COVID may have an impact on cardiac ICU care practices, such as early mobility (EM) program delivery. A structured EM program was in place in our cardiac ICU prior to COVID. Restrictions on hallway ambulation and patient-provider interaction due to COID led us to modify our EM program to a nurse-assisted, patient-guided program. To our knowledge, there are no studies evaluating patient-guided mobilization in a critical care setting. Thus, our objective was to assess whether self-guided EM was safe and feasible in the cardiac ICU during the COVID period. Methods: We reviewed consecutive records in a tertiary care cardiac ICU over a 2-month period following initiation of the self-guided EM program. Only patients who were COVID negative or presumed negative were admitted to the cardiac ICU. Nurses assessed patients using the Level of Function Mobility Score (range 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating better mobility) and provided the current functional level to patients. Patients used their own smartphones or supplied tablets to view video modules, which guided performance of level-specific mobility activities. Patients with contraindications to mobilization based on prespecified criteria were not mobilized. There were 2 mobilization opportunities per day and 3 activities per opportunity. Results: There were 52 patients admitted to the CICU during the study period (mean age 67.4 ± 16.0 years; 38.5% female). Ten patients (19.2%) had contraindications to mobilization during unit stay; all of these patients were subsequently mobilized. Two-thirds (66.7%; 208/312) of mobilization opportunities had at least one mobility activity. 72.2% (676/936) of prescribed mobility activities were performed. The adverse event rate was 0.6% (4 events/676 activities); none of these were major or life-threatening. There were no falls or line dislodgements. Conclusions: Patient self-guided mobilization was safe and feasible during a period of limited provider-patient interaction in a cardiac ICU. Self-guided EM programs can be considered during periods of restrictions on usual mobility programs. Further studies are needed to evaluate EM in other settings, such as in COVID hospital wards.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders→French-language works237,207→