Objectives: To identify staff-reported factors and perceptions that influenced implementation and sustainability of an early mobilization program (PICU Up!) in the PICU. Design: A qualitative study using semistructured phone interviews to characterize interprofessional staff perspectives of the PICU Up! program. Following data saturation, thematic analysis was performed on interview transcripts. Setting: Tertiary-care PICU in the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD. Subjects: Interprofessional PICU staff. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Fifty-two staff members involved in PICU mobilization across multiple disciplines were interviewed. Three constructs emerged that reflected the different stages of PICU Up! program execution: 1) factors influencing the implementation process, 2) staff perceptions of PICU Up!, and 3) improvements in program integration. Themes were developed within these constructs, addressing facilitators for PICU Up! implementation, cultural changes for unitwide integration, positive impressions toward early mobility, barriers to program sustainability, and refinements for more robust staff and family engagement. Conclusions: Three years after implementation, PICU Up! remains well-received by staff, positively influencing role satisfaction and PICU team dynamics. Furthermore, patients and family members are perceived to be enthusiastic about mobility efforts, driving staff support. Through an ongoing focus on stakeholder buy-in, interprofessional engagement, and bundled care to promote mobility, the program has become part of the culture in the Johns Hopkins Hospital PICU. However, several barriers remain that prevent consistent execution of early mobility, including challenges with resource management, sedation decisions, and patient heterogeneity. Characterizing these staff perceptions can facilitate the development of solutions that use institutional strengths to grow and sustain PICU mobility initiatives.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Of the 161 participating PICUs, 83% were in academic teaching hospitals and 42% were in free-standing children's hospitals. Median size was 16 beds (interquartile range, 10-24 beds). Only 15 PICUs (9%) had incorporated all six ABCDEF bundle components into routine practice. Standardized pain assessment (A) was the most common (91%), followed by family engagement (F, 88%) and routine sedation assessment (C) with validated scales (84%). Protocols for testing extubation readiness or conducting spontaneous breathing trials (B) were reported in 57%, with 34% reporting a ventilator weaning protocol. Routine delirium monitoring with a validated screening tool (D) was reported by 44% of PICUs, and 26% had a guideline, protocol, or policy for early exercise/mobility (E). Practices for spontaneous breathing trials were variable in 29% of Canadian PICUs versus greater than 50% in the other regions. Delirium monitoring was lowest in Brazilian PICUs (18%) versus greater than 40% in other regions, and family engagement was reported in 55% of European PICUs versus greater than 90% in other regions. CONCLUSIONS: ABCDEF bundle components have been adopted with substantial variability across regions. Additional research must rigorously evaluate the efficacy of specific elements with a focus on B, D, E, and full ABCDEF bundle implementation. Implementation science is needed to facilitate an understanding of the barriers to ABCDEF implementation and sustainability with a focus on specific cultural and regional differences.

No abstract