P0071 / #1741: PREVALENCE OF ACUTE REHABILITATION FOR KIDS IN THE PICU: A CANADIAN MULTICENTER POINT PREVALENCE STUDY (PARK-PICU CANADA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims & Objectives: Early mobility-based rehabilitation is recommended in critically ill children, however, little is known regarding current practices in Canada. This study sought to evaluate mobilization practices amongst Canadian pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). Methods: National two-day point prevalence study. Data were collected on all children admitted to the PICU for ≥72-hours on the study day. Outcomes of interest were prevalence and nature of mobilization, rehabilitation resources, mobilization barriers and adverse events, and predictors of out-of-bed mobility. Results: Thirteen PICUs participated, only two (15%) of which have early mobilization practice guidelines. Mobilization occurred in 110/137 (80%) patient-days. Out-of-bed mobility was the most common activity, occurring on 87 (64%) patient-days (Figure 1). Therapists provided mobility on 33% of patient-days. Nurses and family facilitated the majority of mobility events (74% and 49%, respectively). Family participation was strongly associated with out-of-bed mobility (OR 6.41, 95% CI 2.28-18.00). Presence of an endotracheal tube (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.54), vasoactive infusion (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.76) or age ≥3 years (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08-0.80) were associated with a lower likelihood of out-of-bed mobility. Barriers to mobilization were reported on 58/137 (42%) patient-days, most common of which were cardiovascular instability (15%). Adverse events occurred during 22/387 (6%) mobility events, primarily consisting of transient vital sign changes (54%).Conclusions: Critically ill children in Canadian PICUs are commonly and safely mobilized out-of-bed, which is an improvement from previous practice. The majority of mobility is facilitated by non-rehabilitation therapist personnel, and family engagement is a key facilitator of PICU-based rehabilitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".