Developing tools to study the safety of ICU patient mobilisation v1
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Developing tools to study the safety of mobilisation of Intensive Care Unit patients: A Delphi Process
IRAS ID
212066
Contact name
Anthony Gordon
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Joint Research Compliance Office, Imperial College London
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 8 months, 31 days
Research summary
Researching the safety of mobilising intensive care unit (ICU) patients: What is the definition of an unsafe event and how do you judge risk when mobilising patients on vasoactive drugs?
There is evidence that getting patients out of bed and walking (early mobilisation) on Intensive Care Units (ICU) can help reduce the substantial physical problems experienced by ICU survivors. Previous studies assess safety by measuring unsafe events. However agreement is needed on what exactly defines an “unsafe event” whilst mobilising in an ICU. A vital safety factor is poor heart system function requiring vasoactive drugs, which can stop blood pressure from falling. I hope to explore the safety of mobilising patients on vasoactive drugs in the future by comparing groups of these patients perceived to be at differing risk of unsafe events. However, before this an agreement is required on what factors define these patient groups.
An international group of expert ICU doctors, nurses, physiotherapists (found through previous studies) and former patients (found through patient support groups) will take part in a Delphi process. This uses 3 questionnaires given one after the other over several months: We will ask:
1. What things define an unsafe event?
2. What defines groups of ICU patients at different levels of risk of mobilising on vasoactive drugs?
Patients are only asked question one. The second questionnaire summarises the group’s answers, then asks which answers experts agree with. In the third questionnaire, experts are given a chance to reconsider their choices, after hearing what the rest of the group think. Those answers agreed on by 70% of the group become the final answer to the question. These tools are useful for future research that can help improve patient safety.Funded as part of a National Institute for Health Research Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship.
REC name
London - Camberwell St Giles Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
17/LO/0830
Date of REC Opinion
2 Jun 2017
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion