Jump to content

Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool

Original Editor - Uchechukwu Chukwuemeka

Top Contributors - Uchechukwu Chukwuemeka

Objective

The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx) was developed to provide a practical, reliable, and holistic bedside tool for assessing physical function and activity in critically ill patients [1]. CPAx is designed to monitor ICU-acquired weakness and is unique in that it also evaluates respiratory function and cough strength. This comprehensive measurement tool enhances clinical decision-making, informs goal setting, and helps support effective discharge planning.

Intended Population

CPAx was originally designed for adults in intensive care and high dependency units, but also now available in a paediatric version [2]. It is suitable for patients across the trajectory of acute critical illness, from ICU admission to hospital discharge.

Method of Use

The CPAx comprises 10 domains of physical function:

Each domain is scored on a 6-point Guttman scale (0 = complete dependence, 5 = complete independence), resulting in a total score of up to 50. A radar chart can be used to visualise the patient’s functional profile, highlighting strengths and training requirements.

Reference

This tool was developed in the UK in 2013, and since then, the CPAx has been translated and cross-culturally validated into Danish [3], Swedish [4], Norwegian [5] , German [6], Chinese [7], Spanish [8], Portuguese, and Turkish [9]. A Worldwide CPAx Collaboration was launched in 2023 to foster global knowledge exchange and research.

Evidence

Studies have shown that the CPAx reliably identifies ICU acquired weakness [10] and predicts discharge outcomes, including return to home and work [11][12]. It has demonstrated strong construct validity when compared with other functional measures, with an ability to discriminate between groups of ICU survivors with different functional needs at hospital discharge [13].

Reliability

The CPAx shows consistently high inter-rater (κ = 0.988) and intra-rater reliability (κ = 0.95) as well as strong internal consistency (α = 0.798) [1][14]. These qualities make it dependable across different clinicians and settings.

Validity

Construct validity is well established, with CPAx scores correlating strongly with other recognised measures of physical function. Minimal floor and ceiling effects enhance its applicability throughout the recovery process [15].

Responsiveness

The CPAx might be sensitive to changes in physical function and activity, albeit it has only been tested in small and selective populations (burns [13] abdominal surgery [16]). Nevertheless, the scoring system and visual charting allow clinicians to track progress and adjust care plans accordingly, with clinicians appreciating the tool for continuous evaluation [17].

Miscellaneous

There are several advantages of CPAx, and they include:

  • Comprehensive Functional Assessment: CPAx evaluates multiple domains, including respiratory function, mobility, and strength, offering a holistic view of a patient's physical status.
  • Predictive Value: CPAx scores correlate with discharge outcomes; higher scores often indicate better functional recovery and likelihood of returning home without additional care.
  • Low Floor and Ceiling Effects: The tool shows minimal clustering at the extremes, making it sensitive across a wide range of patient abilities and the trajectory of recovery [4][5][17].
  • Supports Rehabilitation Planning: Physiotherapists can use CPAx to set targeted rehabilitation goals and monitor progress over time.
  • Feasible in ICU and High-Care Settings: Studies show CPAx can be reliably used in both trauma and medical ICUs, as well as high-dependency care units [18].
  • Reasonable assessment times, with recent studies showing that after e-learning training, shorter assessment times were reported [19].
    However, there are disadvantages. Proper use of CPAx requires training for healthcare providers to ensure accurate and consistent application in practice. E-Learnings are available in several languages, but not in English at present. Also, CPAx is not diagnostic but a functional assessment tool; it does not diagnose underlying conditions or causes of impairment.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Corner EJ, Wood H, Englebretsen C, Thomas A, Grant RL, Nikoletou D, et al. The Chelsea critical care physical assessment tool (CPAx): validation of an innovative new tool to measure physical morbidity in the general adult critical care population; an observational proof-of-concept pilot study. Physiotherapy. 2013;99(1):33-41.
  2. ↑ Ferguson AH, Stockton KA, Wright SE, George JM, Fulton TJ, Stocker C, et al. Measuring Physical Function in the PICU: Development and Testing of a Children's Version (Age 2-18 yr) of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2024;25(5):e239-e45.
  3. ↑ Astrup K, Corner EJ, Hansen MG, Petersen AK. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool into Danish. Physiother Theory Pract. 2020;36(9):1027-34.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Holdar U, Eriksson F, Siesage K, Corner EJ, Ledström V, Svensson-Raskh A, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and inter-rater reliability of the Swedish version of the Chelsea critical care assessment tool (CPAX-Swe) in critically ill patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2021;43(11):1600-4.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Schanke CM, Brekka AK, Rimehaug SA, Klokkerud M, Andersen TM. Norwegian Version of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx-NOR): Translation, Face Validity, Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Inter-Rater Reliability. J Clin Med. 2023;12(15).
  6. ↑ Eggmann S, Verra ML, Stefanicki V, Kindler A, Seyler D, Hilfiker R, et al. German version of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx-GE): translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44(16):4509-18.
  7. ↑ Zhang Z, Wang G, Wu Y, Guo J, Ding N, Jiang B, et al. Chinesisation, adaptation and validation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool in critically ill patients: a cross-sectional observational study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(4):e045550.
  8. ↑ Ibáñez M, Lira MT, Gajardo M, Cid D, Fagetti L, Venegas A, et al. Adaptación cultural al español del instrumento de evaluación de funcionalidad física en Unidad de Paciente Crítico: The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx) Rev Chil Med Intensiv. 2017; 32(2):100-106
  9. ↑ Uyaroğlu MB, Pehlivan E, Koyutürk G, Baydilli KN, Parlak H. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Chelsea critical care physical assessment tool (CPAx-TR). ​ Turk J Intensive Care. ​ 2025;23(3):222-230.
  10. ↑ Wu Y, Liu Y, Wang G, Zheng A, Zhang Z, Wei H, et al. An optimal cut-off point for the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool to diagnose intensive care unit-acquired weakness in patients with mechanical ventilation: A multicentre observational study. Nurs Crit Care. 2025;30(3):e70018.
  11. ↑ Bharath F, Hanekom S, Estherhuizen T, Lupton-Smith A. Return to work of major trauma survivors from a private level 1 trauma centre in South Africa. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2025;51(1):17.
  12. ↑ Eggmann S, Verra ML, Stefanicki V, Kindler A, Schefold JC, Zante B, et al. Predictive validity of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults: a prospective clinimetric study. Disabil Rehabil. 2023;45(1):111-6.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Corner EJ, Soni N, Handy JM, Brett SJ. Construct validity of the Chelsea critical care physical assessment tool: an observational study of recovery from critical illness. Crit Care. 2014;18(2):R55.
  14. ↑ Eggmann S, Paton M. Clinimetrics: The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx). J Physiother. 2025;71(3):204-5.
  15. ↑ Corner EJ, Hichens LV, Attrill KM, Vizcaychipi MP, Brett SJ, Handy JM. The responsiveness of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool in measuring functional recovery in the burns critical care population: an observational study. Burns. 2015;41(2):241-7.
  16. ↑ Fourie M, van Aswegen H. Physical function and activity of patients after open abdominal surgery: a prospective cohort study comparing the clinimetric properties of two outcome measures. Physiotherapy. 2024;123:142-50.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Astrup K, Corner E, Van Tulder M, Sørensen L. Reliability and responsiveness of the Danish version of The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx). Physiother Theory Pract. 2023;39(1):193-9
  18. ↑ Astrup K, Rolving N, Sørensen L. Improving quality of physical function assessment in intensive care units through routine use of the Danish Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx-D). Disabil Rehabil. 2025;47(21):5594-601
  19. ↑ Eggmann S, Kindler A, Hilfiker R, Nydahl P. Reliability, validity and practicability of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) following an e-learning programme: A clinimetric study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2025;87:103959.
Retrieved from "https://www.physio-pedia.com/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_Critical_Care_Physical_Assessment_Tool&oldid=373134"