33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      eLearning to facilitate the education and implementation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment: a novel measure of function in critical illness

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To evaluate the efficacy of eLearning in the widespread standardised teaching, distribution and implementation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment (CPAx) tool—a validated tool to assess physical function in critically ill patients.

          Design

          Prospective educational study. An eLearning module was developed through a conceptual framework, using the four-stage technique for skills teaching to teach clinicians how to use the CPAx. Example and test video case studies of CPAx assessments were embedded within the module. The CPAx scores for the test case studies and demographic data were recorded in a secure area of the website. Data were analysed for inter-rater reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to see if an eLearning educational package facilitated consistent use of the tool. A utility and content validity questionnaire was distributed after 1 year to eLearning module registrants (n=971). This was to evaluate uptake of the CPAx in clinical practice and content validity of the CPAx from the perspective of clinical users.

          Setting

          The module was distributed for use via professional forums (n=2) and direct contacts (n=95).

          Participants

          Critical care clinicians.

          Primary outcome measure

          ICC of the test case studies.

          Results

          Between July and October 2014, 421 candidates from 15 countries registered for the eLearning module. The ICC for case one was 0.996 (95% CI 0.990 to 0.999; n=207). The ICC for case two was 0.988 (0.996 to 1.000; n=184). The CPAx has a strong total scale content validity index (s-CVI) of 0.94 and is well used.

          Conclusions

          eLearning is a useful and reliable way of teaching psychomotor skills, such as the CPAx. The CPAx is a well-used measure with high content validity rated by clinicians.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Assessment of impairment and activity limitations in the critically ill: a systematic review of measurement instruments and their clinimetric properties.

          To identify measures used to evaluate the broad constructs of functional impairment and limitations in the critically ill across the continuum of recovery, and to evaluate, synthesise and compare the clinimetric properties of the measures identified.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A physical function test for use in the intensive care unit: validity, responsiveness, and predictive utility of the physical function ICU test (scored).

            Several tests have recently been developed to measure changes in patient strength and functional outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). The original Physical Function ICU Test (PFIT) demonstrates reliability and sensitivity. The aims of this study were to further develop the original PFIT, to derive an interval score (the PFIT-s), and to test the clinimetric properties of the PFIT-s. A nested cohort study was conducted. One hundred forty-four and 116 participants performed the PFIT at ICU admission and discharge, respectively. Original test components were modified using principal component analysis. Rasch analysis examined the unidimensionality of the PFIT, and an interval score was derived. Correlations tested validity, and multiple regression analyses investigated predictive ability. Responsiveness was assessed using the effect size index (ESI), and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated. The shoulder lift component was removed. Unidimensionality of combined admission and discharge PFIT-s scores was confirmed. The PFIT-s displayed moderate convergent validity with the Timed "Up & Go" Test (r=-.60), the Six-Minute Walk Test (r=.41), and the Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score (rho=.49). The ESI of the PFIT-s was 0.82, and the MCID was 1.5 points (interval scale range=0-10). A higher admission PFIT-s score was predictive of: an MRC score of ≥48, increased likelihood of discharge home, reduced likelihood of discharge to inpatient rehabilitation, and reduced acute care hospital length of stay. Scoring of sit-to-stand assistance required is subjective, and cadence cutpoints used may not be generalizable. The PFIT-s is a safe and inexpensive test of physical function with high clinical utility. It is valid, responsive to change, and predictive of key outcomes. It is recommended that the PFIT-s be adopted to test physical function in the ICU.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The clinical utility of the functional status score for the intensive care unit (FSS-ICU) at a long-term acute care hospital: a prospective cohort study.

              Long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) have emerged for patients requiring medical care beyond a short stay. Minimal data have been reported on functional outcomes in this setting. The purposes of this study were: (1) to measure the clinical utility of the Functional Status Score for the Intensive Care Unit (FSS-ICU) in an LTACH setting and (2) to explore the association between FSS-ICU score and discharge setting. Data were obtained from 101 patients (median age=70 years, interquartile range [IQR]=61-78; 39% female, 61% male) who were admitted to an LTACH. Participants were categorized into 1 of 5 groups by discharge setting: (1) home (n=14), (2) inpatient rehabilitation facility (n=26), (3) skilled nursing facility (n=23), (4) long-term care/hospice/expired (n=13), or (5) transferred to a short-stay hospital (n=25). Data were prospectively collected from a 38-bed LTACH in the United States over 8 months beginning in September 2010. Functional status was scored using the FSS-ICU within 4 days of admission and every 2 weeks until discharge. The FSS-ICU consists of 5 categories: rolling, supine-to-sit transfers, unsupported sitting, sit-to-stand transfers, and ambulation. Each category was rated from 0 to 7, with a maximum cumulative FSS-ICU score of 35. Cumulative FSS-ICU scores significantly improved from a median (IQR) of 9 (3-17) to 14 (5-24) at discharge. Median (IQR) cumulative discharge FSS-ICU scores were significantly different among the discharge categories: home=28 (22-32), inpatient rehabilitation facility=21 (15-24), skilled nursing facility=14 (8-21), long-term care/hospice/expired=5 (0-11), and transfer to a short-stay hospital=4 (0-7). Patients receiving therapy at an LTACH demonstrate significant improvements from admission to discharge using the FSS-ICU. This outcome tool discriminates among discharge settings and successfully documents functional improvements of patients in an LTACH setting.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2016
                11 April 2016
                : 6
                : 4
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital , London, UK
                [2 ]Imperial College London, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital , London, UK
                [3 ]Centre for Perioperative Medicine and Critical Care Research, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Hammersmith Hospital , London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Evelyn J Corner; e.corner13@ 123456imperial.ac.uk
                Article
                bmjopen-2015-010614
                10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010614
                4838744
                27067895
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                Product
                Funding
                Funded by: Imperial College London, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000761;
                Categories
                Medical Education and Training
                Research
                1506
                1709
                1707
                1689
                1704
                1727

                Medicine

                education & training (see medical education & training)

                Comments

                Comment on this article