ICU Mobility Scale: Difference between revisions

mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
</div>  
</div>  
== Objective  ==
== Objective  ==
* To record patient's highest level of mobility in Intensive Care Unit (ICU)   
* To record patient's highest level of mobility in Intensive Care Unit (ICU)<ref name=":0">Hodgson C, Needham D, Haines K, Bailey M, Ward A, Harrold M, Young P, Zanni J, Buhr H, Higgins A, Presneill J. Feasibility and inter-rater reliability of the ICU Mobility Scale. Heart & Lung. 2014 Jan 1;43(1):19-24.</ref><ref name=":1">Tipping CJ, Holland AE, Harrold M, Crawford T, Halliburton N, Hodgson CL. The minimal important difference of the ICU mobility scale. Heart & Lung. 2018 Sep 1;47(5):497-501.Tipping CJ, Holland AE, Harrold M, Crawford T, Halliburton N, Hodgson CL. The minimal important difference of the ICU mobility scale. Heart & Lung. 2018 Sep 1;47(5):497-501.</ref>  


== Intended Population  ==
== Intended Population  ==
* Patient's admitted in ICU <br>
* Patient's admitted in ICU <ref name=":1" /><br>


== Method of Use  ==
== Method of Use  ==
Health professionals working in ICU setting can easily use the outcome tool in the patient to check the highest mobility level of patient.
Health professionals working in ICU setting can easily use the outcome tool in the patient to check the highest mobility level of patient.<ref name=":0" />


== Evidence  ==
== Evidence  ==


=== Reliability  ===
=== Reliability  ===
* Intraclass correlation: 0.80 (0.75-0.84)
* Intraclass correlation: 0.80 (0.75-0.84)<ref name=":0" />
* Interrater reliability with kappa score: 0.84 for senior and junior physiotherapists, 0.77 for senior physiotherapists and nurse and 0.90 for junior physiotherapist and nurse.  
* Interrater reliability with kappa score: 0.84 for senior and junior physiotherapists, 0.77 for senior physiotherapists and nurse and 0.90 for junior physiotherapist and nurse<ref name=":0" />.  


=== Validity  ===
=== Validity  ===


=== Responsiveness  ===
=== Responsiveness  ===
* Minimal Important Difference:0.89-3
 
=== Minimal Important Difference ===
* 0.89-3<ref name=":1" />


=== Miscellaneous<span style="font-size: 20px; font-weight: normal;" class="Apple-style-span"></span>  ===
=== Miscellaneous<span style="font-size: 20px; font-weight: normal;" class="Apple-style-span"></span>  ===

Revision as of 15:04, 12 September 2020

This article or area is currently under construction and may only be partially complete. Please come back soon to see the finished work! (12/09/2020)

Original Editor - User Name

Top Contributors - Redisha Jakibanjar and Kim Jackson  

Objective[edit | edit source]

  • To record patient's highest level of mobility in Intensive Care Unit (ICU)[1][2]

Intended Population[edit | edit source]

  • Patient's admitted in ICU [2]

Method of Use[edit | edit source]

Health professionals working in ICU setting can easily use the outcome tool in the patient to check the highest mobility level of patient.[1]

Evidence[edit | edit source]

Reliability[edit | edit source]

  • Intraclass correlation: 0.80 (0.75-0.84)[1]
  • Interrater reliability with kappa score: 0.84 for senior and junior physiotherapists, 0.77 for senior physiotherapists and nurse and 0.90 for junior physiotherapist and nurse[1].

Validity[edit | edit source]

Responsiveness[edit | edit source]

Minimal Important Difference[edit | edit source]

Miscellaneous[edit | edit source]

Links[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Hodgson C, Needham D, Haines K, Bailey M, Ward A, Harrold M, Young P, Zanni J, Buhr H, Higgins A, Presneill J. Feasibility and inter-rater reliability of the ICU Mobility Scale. Heart & Lung. 2014 Jan 1;43(1):19-24.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Tipping CJ, Holland AE, Harrold M, Crawford T, Halliburton N, Hodgson CL. The minimal important difference of the ICU mobility scale. Heart & Lung. 2018 Sep 1;47(5):497-501.Tipping CJ, Holland AE, Harrold M, Crawford T, Halliburton N, Hodgson CL. The minimal important difference of the ICU mobility scale. Heart & Lung. 2018 Sep 1;47(5):497-501.