OP035 Topic: AS22–Quality and Safety/Errors/Data Management/Other: EARLY MOBILIZATION IN CRITICALLY ILL CHILDREN: A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims & Objectives: Background: Immobility in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) seems to be a modifiable factor contributing to functional disability. Recommendations now advise early mobilization in critical care: a physical activity within 5 days of PICU admission, to maintain or restore musculoskeletal strength and function. Aims: To evaluate the uptake and safety of a quality improvement protocol of early mobilization in the PICU; specifically, to increase the proportion of patients adequately mobilized according to their acuity level at PICU day 3. Methods: Study design: a prospective single-center before-and-after study. Methods: Eligible children in PICU < 18 years old, expected to stay > 24 hours. The study was carried out from March 2022 to June 2023 in a pediatric tertiary center. Data were collected by repeated cross-sectional measurements 2 days/week at 2-week intervals. Outcome measures were the proportion of patients adequately mobilized on PICU day 3 and out of bed. Process measures included daily discussion of mobility, while balancing measures included safety outcomes of EM. Results: We collected data on 200 patients; 38 in the pre-implementation and 162 post. In pre-implementation phase, 58% of patients were adequately mobilized at PICU day 3. Six months after implementation, the proportion increased to 63.7%. The most significant increase was in children over 5 years: 41.3% to 53%. Process measures showed an increase of discussion about mobilization; balancing measures did not demonstrate an increase in adverse effects. Conclusions: Success in implementation of early mobilization in PICU involves ongoing dedication, team commitment, age-specific equipment and engagement from caregivers. Keywords: quality Improvement, early mobilization, critical care, pediatric intensive care unit
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 | 0.060 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".