Background
There are few reports of new functional impairment following critical illness from COVID-19. We aimed to describe the incidence of death or new disability, functional impairment and changes in health-related quality of life of patients after COVID-19 critical illness at 6 months.
Methods
In a nationally representative, multicenter, prospective cohort study of COVID-19 critical illness, we determined the prevalence of death or new disability at 6 months, the primary outcome. We measured mortality, new disability and return to work with changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12L (WHODAS) and health status with the EQ5D-5LTM.
Results
Of 274 eligible patients, 212 were enrolled from 30 hospitals. The median age was 61 (51–70) years, and 124 (58.5%) patients were male. At 6 months, 43/160 (26.9%) patients died and 42/108 (38.9%) responding survivors reported new disability. Compared to pre-illness, the WHODAS percentage score worsened (mean difference (MD), 10.40% [95% CI 7.06–13.77]; p < 0.001). Thirteen (11.4%) survivors had not returned to work due to poor health. There was a decrease in the EQ-5D-5LTM utility score (MD, − 0.19 [− 0.28 to − 0.10]; p < 0.001). At 6 months, 82 of 115 (71.3%) patients reported persistent symptoms. The independent predictors of death or new disability were higher severity of illness and increased frailty.
Conclusions
At six months after COVID-19 critical illness, death and new disability was substantial. Over a third of survivors had new disability, which was widespread across all areas of functioning.
Clinical trial registrationNCT04401254 May 26, 2020.
Author Contributions: Drs Serpa Neto and Hodgson had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Objective
Hip fractures are common and significantly impact mobility and physical function. Measurement of patient progress post hip fracture in the acute hospital setting is important to monitor early recovery and outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the measurement properties (reliability, validity, responsiveness), interpretability, and clinical utility of instruments used to measure mobility and physical function in patients with hip fracture in the acute hospital setting.
Methods
Three databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL) were searched. Studies reporting direct clinician assessment instruments to measure mobility or physical function in patients with hip fracture were included. Data were extracted by 2 reviewers and the quality of each study was determined using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist.
Results
Sixty-eight studies were included with 19 measurement instruments identified. The most frequently used instruments were the Timed “Up & Go” Test (TUG) (19 studies), Barthel Index (BI) (18 studies), Cumulated Ambulation Score (CAS) (18 studies), and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) (14 studies). All 4 of these instruments demonstrated good predictive validity (clinical outcomes and mortality) and responsiveness over time (effect sizes 0.63–2.79). The BI and CAS also had good reliability (ICC >0.70). Floor effects were demonstrated for the TUG, CAS and FIM (16%–60% of patients). The TUG, CAS and BI all had good clinical utility.
Conclusion
Depending on the context (use by treating clinicians, research, benchmarking) 1 or a combination of the BI, CAS, and TUG provide robust measurement of mobility and physical function for patients with hip fracture in the acute hospital setting.
Impact
This study identified 3 instruments suitable for measuring mobility and physical function in hospitalised patients following hip fracture. This provides clinicians with tools to measure patient progress and benchmark across sites to improve patient outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.