IMPORTANCE Critical illness results in disability and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQOL), but the optimum timing and components of rehabilitation are uncertain. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of increasing physical and nutritional rehabilitation plus information delivered during the post-intensive care unit (ICU) acute hospital stay by dedicated rehabilitation assistants on subsequent mobility, HRQOL, and prevalent disabilities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A parallel group, randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment at 2 hospitals in Edinburgh, Scotland, of 240 patients discharged from the ICU between December 1, 2010, and January 31, 2013, who required at least 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Analysis for the primary outcome and other 3-month outcomes was performed between June and August 2013; for the 6-and 12-month outcomes and the health economic evaluation, between March and April 2014. INTERVENTIONS During the post-ICU hospital stay, both groups received physiotherapy and dietetic, occupational, and speech/language therapy, but patients in the intervention group received rehabilitation that typically increased the frequency of mobility and exercise therapies 2-to 3-fold, increased dietetic assessment and treatment, used individualized goal setting, and provided greater illness-specific information. Intervention group therapy was coordinated and delivered by a dedicated rehabilitation practitioner. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) (range 0-15) at 3 months; higher scores indicate greater mobility. Secondary outcomes included HRQOL, psychological outcomes, self-reported symptoms, patient experience, and cost-effectiveness during a 12-month follow-up (completed in February 2014). RESULTS Median RMI at randomization was 3 (interquartile range [IQR], 1-6) and at 3 months was 13 (IQR, 10-14) for the intervention and usual care groups (mean difference, −0.2 [95% CI, −1.3 to 0.9; P = .71]). The HRQOL scores were unchanged by the intervention (mean difference in the Physical Component Summary score, −0.1 [95% CI, −3.3 to 3.1; P = .96]; and in the Mental Component Summary score, 0.2 [95% CI, −3.4 to 3.8; P = .91]). No differences were found for self-reported symptoms of fatigue, pain, appetite, joint stiffness, or breathlessness. Levels of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress were similar, as were hand grip strength and the timed Up & Go test. No differences were found at the 6-or 12-month follow-up for any outcome measures. However, patients in the intervention group reported greater satisfaction with physiotherapy, nutritional support, coordination of care, and information provision. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Post-ICU hospital-based rehabilitation, including increased physical and nutritional therapy plus information provision, did not improve physical recovery or HRQOL, but improved patient satisfaction with many aspects of recovery.

The study was able to recruit, randomise and retain family member participants. Further strategies are required to assess intervention fidelity and improve data collection.

Research into PFCC interventions is diverse; however, few researchers present a multi-dimensional approach incorporating a culture shift to enact PFCC throughout the ICU trajectory. There is an opportunity for future research to describe, develop, and test instruments that measure PFCC based on its multiple dimensions and not on one component in isolation. Importantly, for PFCC to successfully individualise quality patient care, a commitment and enactment of partnerships between health care professionals, patients, and family members is imperative.

For healthcare professionals and policymakers, it is important to realise that recovery and transitioning through to survivorship happen within an individual's time frame, not a schedule imposed by the healthcare system. Currently, there are no care pathways or policies in place for critical illness survivors that would support intensive care unit survivors and their families in the transitions to survivorship.

BackgroundMechanically ventilated patients often develop muscle weakness post-intensive care admission. Current evidence suggests that early mobilisation of these patients can be an effective intervention in improving their outcomes. However, what constitutes early mobilisation in mechanically ventilated patients (EM-MV) remains unclear. We aimed to systematically explore the definitions and activity types of EM-MV in the literature.MethodsWhittemore and Knafl’s framework guided this review. CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ASSIA, and Cochrane Library were searched to capture studies from 2000 to 2018, combined with hand search of grey literature and reference lists of included studies. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools were used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Data extraction and quality assessment of studies were performed independently by each reviewer before coming together in sub-groups for discussion and agreement. An inductive and data-driven thematic analysis was undertaken on verbatim extracts of EM-MV definitions and activities in included studies.ResultsSeventy-six studies were included from which four major themes were inferred: (1) non-standardised definition, (2) contextual factors, (3) negotiated process and (4) collaboration between patients and staff. The first theme indicates that EM-MV is either not fully defined in studies or when a definition is provided this is not standardised across studies. The remaining themes reflect the diversity of EM-MV activities which depends on patients’ characteristics and ICU settings; the negotiated decision-making process between patients and staff; and their interdependent relationship during the implementation.ConclusionsThis review highlights the absence of an agreed definition and on what constitutes early mobilisation in mechanically ventilated patients. To advance research and practice an agreed and shared definition is a pre-requisite.