Mobilizing Patients with Adequate Care Services Critical for the Rehabilitation Process and Health Outcomes

fm=f_2392
April 25, 2022|Craig H. Lichtblau, M.D., P.A. International Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation|

Craig H. Lichtblau1,2*, Christopher Warburton3, Gabriel Meli4, Allyson Gorman5

1Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Consultant to the Paley Orthopedic and Spine Institute, St. Mary’s Medical Center, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA;2Consultant to Children’s Medical Services for the State of Florida, District 9, St. Mary’s Medical Center, West Palm Beach, Florida 33407, United States; 3University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA;4Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA;5Medical College of Wisconsin, Wauwatosa, WI, USA

ABSTRACT
Immobilized patients are too frequently left in an immobilized state for too long, leading to secondary complications that are often more severe than the primary disorder that led to immobilization. Data now show the significant benefits of mobilizing patients as quickly as possible to avoid or reverse these types of complications. While there has been a paradigm shift in the view of the value of bedrest, mobilizing patients early is still limited by a lack of relevant resources to help support the rehabilitation process. More aid and attendant care are thus needed to help mobilize patients safely, particularly in the home environment, where professional care is beneficial for both the rehabilitation process and the prevention of complications that affect immobilized patients.
Keywords: Immobilization; Early mobilization; Rehabilitation; Aid and attendant care; Home care

INTRODUCTION

Immobility increases the risk of secondary complications and shortens lifespans of debilitated patients

Though once considered an important mechanism for recovery from surgery, trauma, or disease, bedrest has unintended harms that have been recognized for over a century [1-3] While immobilization can heal injured parts of the body, the health-risks it poses far outweigh its potential benefits in most cases.

The deconditioning that occurs with prolonged immobilization is a common cause of functional decline [4] unfortunately, immobilization is still widely recommended in healthcare, and the consequent complications are frequently more serious than the primary disorder the immobilization is intended to treat [5].

Nearly 1 in 10 premature deaths worldwide is attributed to inactivity [6,7]. Like people who live a sedentary lifestyle, which is associated with shortened lifespan and an increased risk of a variety of diseases, including diabetes, certain cancers, asthma, chronic liver disease, chronic kidney disease, ischemic heart disease, thyroid disorder, depression, migraine, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and diverticular disease, patients on bedrest suffer from the physiological damage that accompanies immobilization [7,8].

When immobilization is prolonged, almost every organ system is implicated. For instance, immobilization can influence metabolism as well as the respiratory, genitourinary, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and nervous systems, with a wide array of health-related consequences [5,9]. These consequences include but are not limited to muscle weakness, restricted joint mobility, psychological disturbances, and cognitive impairments, and they may lead to a variety of complications including but not limited to pressure sores, Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT), pneumonia, Urinary Tract Infections (UTI), mechanical ventilation, myelitis, and sepsis [2,10,11].

Troublingly, the adverse effects of immobilization are revealing themselves to be long-lasting and potentially irreversible, especially in older patients [12]. Despite these dangers, immobilization continues to be pursued as a therapeutic path far too frequently, and the early mobilization that can be used to prevent complications is often not practiced [2].

Correspondence to: Dr. Craig H. Lichtblau, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Consultant to the Paley Orthopedic and Spine Institute at St. Mary’s Medical Center, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA, E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 20-Jun-2022, Manuscript No. JPMR-22-18010; Editor assigned: 23-Jun-2022, PreQC No. JPMR-22-18010 (PQ); Reviewed: 13-Jul-2022, QC No. JPMR-22-18010; Revised: 27-Jul-2022, Manuscript No. JPMR-22-18010 (R); Published: 03-Aug-2022, DOI: 10.35248/2329-9096.22.10.639.

Citation: Lichtblau CH, Warburton C, Meli G, Gorman A (2022) Mobilizing Patients with Adequate Care Services is Critical for the Rehabilitation Process and Health Outcomes. Int J Phys Med Rehabil. 10:639.

Copyright: © 2022 Lichtblau CH, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The incidence and results of secondary complications are too dire to justify immobilization

The complications arising because of immobility lead to increased morbidity and mortality, longer hospital stays, and higher healthcare costs because immobilization inevitably causes functional changes that put patients at risk for health deterioration [11]. For instance, during immobilization, basal metabolic rate is decreased, which leads to biochemical and hormonal changes with health-related implications.

Even healthy people who are put on bedrest lose 5% of their muscle mass in just one week [13,14]. The reduced muscle strength observed during immobilization includes weakening in muscles responsible for respiration, which leads immobilized people to suffer from decreased tidal volume as well as decreased minute ventilator volume [5]. The results of these changes can be dire.

While there is an exhaustive list of secondary complications that occur with bedrest, some of the most common are below. These complications present a significant burden to immobilized patients as well as the healthcare system at large.

Pneumonia: In 2018, 1.5 million people in the U.S. were diagnosed with pneumonia, and more than 40,000 of them died from the disease [15]. Hypostatic pneumonia and atelectasis often occur in people who are immobilized because of the resulting impairment in ability to clear secretions [5]. The evidence for the link between immobilization and pneumonia is so strong that the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend early mobilization as a strategy to prevent pneumonia in ventilated patients [16].

Deep vein thrombosis: Approximately 900,000 people suffer DVT in the U.S. each year, and the slowed blood flow that results from immobility has been identified by the CDC as a major risk factor for this complication [17,18]. Recent research into the relationship between immobility and DVT has revealed that more than 3 days of immobility significantly increases the risk for DVT in acutely ill patients [19].

Pressure sores: More than 70% of patients over the age of 70 suffer from pressure sores within 2 weeks of being admitted to the hospital, and the associated complications can be life-threatening. Infection of these sores can, for instance, lead to septicemia [5].

Urinary tract infections: UTIs are the most common bacterial infection, accounting for 1 in 4 of all infections, and the risk of UTIs is known to increase with inactivity [20,21]. As with pressure sores, the UTIs that arise in response to immobilization can lead to life-threatening infections and septicemia [22].

Importantly, even in cases where these complications are effectively treated, the data show that these complications of immobilization reduce quality of life for patients [11]. A recent study showed that of 20,515 bedridden patients, more than 2,600 had one or more major complications arising from immobility, pointing to the urgency of overcoming this dangerous problem [11]. Fortunately, the negative results of immobilization are predictable and avoidable if immobilization is minimized and early mobilization is pursued.

Immobilized patients need to be mobilized as early as possible to prevent secondary effects Early mobilization that is initiated within the first few days of being admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is associated with reduced mortality, length of stay, and readmissions rates, as well as improvements in functionality, strength, independence, self-care at discharge, and overall outcomes and costs [23-30]. Delaying mobilization, on the other hand, is associated with enhanced risks of death and short-term hospital readmissions [31].

Some of the initial data on the benefits of mobilization have demonstrated how early mobilization improves outcomes in specific contexts such as following surgeries, following childbirth, and in cases of mechanical ventilation, as well as in patients who have already suffered immobilization-related complications like DVT and pneumonia [2,32,33]. Review into the impact of timing of mobilization on postoperative outcomes has also revealed that early mobilization is often associated with better postoperative fitness and fewer complications [34].

According to a team at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), early mobilization promotes independence; speeds recover, and improve overall outcomes [35]. Specifically, the benefits of early mobilization include:

  • Stimulating motivation to recover
  • Helping to make breathing easier
  • Reducing pressure that leads to skin deterioration
  • Preventing joint stiffness, achiness, and contractures
  • Improving mental state and clarity of thinking
  • Maintaining heart function
  • Helping bowel function and movement
  • Increasing muscle tone and blood circulation through the body
  • Preventing blood clots (DVT)

Medical recommendations are beginning to catch up to the evidence on the importance of early mobilization. For example, the CDC recommends moving around as much as possible to prevent DVT [18]. Early mobilization is also now recommended in several guidelines in the U.S., U.K., and other European countries to prevent or minimize complications during acute stroke care [36]. While the shift toward recommending early mobilization over extended bedrest signals significant progress in our understanding of the harms of immobilization, achieving early mobilization is hindered by a lack of adequate resources.

Aid and attendant care are necessary to facilitate successful early mobilization

While early mobilization is critical to improving outcomes in immobilized patients, mobilizing requires both direct and indirect support from healthcare professionals. Not only are healthcare professionals needed to guide mobilization activities, but they are also essential for managing the risks that come with mobilization [37].

Determining the best way to provide such support can be a challenge, and a collaborative and dynamic team of healthcare professionals that includes nurses, physicians, and physical therapists may provide the best outcomes [4,38]. Research also shows that implementing protocols based on clearly defined and patient-oriented goals and prioritizing communication between all relevant healthcare professionals can improve early mobilization.

Nurses appear to be particularly valuable in the context of accelerating successful mobilization. Research into how to reduce the negative impact of immobility has demonstrated that access to nurses- and specifically to nurses with higher professional titles-may reduce the incidence of major complications associated with immobility [39].

Similarly, there is evidence showing that early mobilization has its greatest impact when standardized mobility programs or protocols are implemented. According to researchers in this area, clinical nurse specialists are experts in both leading these types of programs or protocols as well as sustaining them toward specific clinical goals like mobility [33].

Recent data show that patients and their families are eager to expedite mobilization [40]. However, they often feel unequipped to facilitate mobilization activities-which may include range of motion exercises, gait training, sitting, or standing-highlighting the importance of attendant care for patient mobilization [23,40].

Lack of consensus guidelines should not prevent clinicians from expediting mobilization

Researchers has established that mobilizing patients who have been admitted to the ICU is not only beneficial but that it is also feasible and safe [41]. The benefits of early mobilization and rehabilitation have also been shown to extend beyond the ICU to general medicine adult patients [4]. While the need for early mobilization and the resources to achieve it are clear, there has yet to exist an established consensus for therapeutic protocols or guidelines for early mobilization [4].

The slow pace may be partially explained by research in the late 1980s, which suggested that immobility was not appreciated as a major problem, as it was often not documented and the reasons for it could often not be ascertained [42]. Perhaps for this reason, changes in muscle strength have often not been assessed in immobilized patients [25,43]. There is thus a scarcity of actionable data related to mobilizing patients [44].

CONCLUSION

Fortunately, the growing urgency for the information and resources to support mobilization has led to the development of randomized controlled trials to determine the feasibility. Delivering specific mobilization programs and such trials are currently underway. As the details of how to optimize mobilization programs are being elucidated, we in the meantime should, as clinicians, use our own observations and expertise to accelerate mobilization in immobilized patients and ensure a true paradigm shift away from the value of bedrest toward the value of mobility.

REFERENCES

  1. Kumar MA, Romero FG, Dharaneeswaran K. Early mobilization in neurocritical care patients. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2020;26(2):147-54.
  2. Alaparthi GK, Gatty A, Samuel SR, Amaravadi SK. Effectiveness, safety, and barriers to early mobilization in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Res Pract. 2020;2020.
  3. Armstrong AC. Urinary Complications in Prolonged Immobilization. Br Med J. 1936;1(3937):1274.
  4. Bergbower EA, Herbst C, Cheng N, Aversano A, Pasqualini K, Hartline C, et al. A novel early mobility bundle improves length of stay and rates of readmission among hospitalized general medicine patients. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2020;10(5):419- 25.
  5. Teasell R, Dittmer DK. Complications of immobilization and bed rest. Part 2: Other complications. Can Fam Physician. 1993;39:1440.
  6. Panahi S, Tremblay A. Sedentariness and health: is sedentary behavior more than just physical inactivity. Front Public Health. 2018;6:258.
  7. Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, Puska P, Blair SN, Katzmarzyk PT, et al. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):219-29.
  8. Cao Z, Xu C, Zhang P, Wang Y. Associations of sedentary time and physical activity with adverse health conditions: Outcome-wide analyses using isotemporal substitution model. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;48:101424.
  9. Dittmer DK, Teasell RC. Complications of immobilization and bed rest. Part 1: Musculoskeletal and cardiovascular complications. Can Fam Physician. 1993;39:1428.
  10. Brower RG. Consequences of bed rest. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(10):S422-8.
  11. Wu X, Li Z, Cao J, Jiao J, Wang Y, Liu G, et al. The association between major complications of immobility during hospitalization and quality of life among bedridden patients: a 3 month prospective multi-center study. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0205729.
  12. Escalon MX, Lichtenstein AH, Posner E, Spielman L, Delgado A, Kolakowsky-Hayner SA. The effects of early mobilization on patients requiring extended mechanical ventilation across multiple ICUs. Crit Care Explor. 2020;2(6).
  13. Berg HE, Larsson L, Tesch PA. Lower limb skeletal muscle function after 6 wk of bed rest. J App Physiol. 1997.
  14. Fink H, Helming M, Unterbuchner C, Lenz A, Neff F, Martyn JA, et al. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome increases immobility-induced neuromuscular weakness. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(3):910-6.
  15. Pneumonia- disease or condition of the week. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2022.
  16. Klompas M, Branson R, Eichenwald EC, Greene LR, Howell MD, Lee G, et al. Strategies to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(S2):S133-54.
  17. Data and Statistics on Venous Thromboembolism. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2022.
  18. What is Venous Thromboembolism?. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2022.
  1. Sartori M, Favaretto E, Cosmi B. Relevance of immobility as a risk factor for symptomatic proximal and isolated distal deep vein thrombosis in acutely ill medical inpatients. Vasc Med. 2021;26(5):542-8.
  2. Park HJ, Park CH, Chang Y, Ryu S. Sitting time, physical activity and the risk of lower urinary tract symptoms: a cohort study. BJU Int. 2018;122(2):293-9.
  3. Foxman B. Epidemiology of urinary tract infections: incidence, morbidity, and economic costs. Am J Med. 2002;113(1):5-13.
  4. Flores-Mireles AL, Walker JN, Caparon M, Hultgren SJ. Urinary tract infections: epidemiology, mechanisms of infection and treatment options. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015;13(5):269-84.
  5. Needham DM, Korupolu R. Rehabilitation quality improvement in an intensive care unit setting: implementation of a quality improvement model. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2010;17(4):271-81.
  6. Morris PE, Goad A, Thompson C, Taylor K, Harry B, Passmore L, et al. Early intensive care unit mobility therapy in the treatment of acute respiratory failure. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(8):2238-43.
  7. Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, Nigos C, Pawlik AJ, Esbrook CL, et al. Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9678):1874-82.
  8. Chao PW, Shih CJ, Lee YJ, Tseng CM, Kuo SC, Shih YN, et al. Association of postdischarge rehabilitation with mortality in intensive care unit survivors of sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190(9):1003-11.
  9. Tipping CJ, Harrold M, Holland A, Romero L, Nisbet T, Hodgson CL. The effects of active mobilisation and rehabilitation in ICU on mortality and function: a systematic review. Intens Care Med. 2017;43(2):171-83.
  10. Parry SM, Nydahl P, Needham DM. Implementing early physical rehabilitation and mobilisation in the ICU: institutional, clinician, and patient considerations. Intens Care Med. 2018;44(4):470-3.
  11. Lord RK, Mayhew CR, Korupolu R, Mantheiy EC, Friedman MA, Palmer JB, et al. ICU early physical rehabilitation programs: financial modeling of cost savings. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(3):717-24.
  12. Morris PE, Griffin L, Thompson C, Hite RD, Haponik E, Berry M, et al. Receiving early mobility during an intensive care unit admission is a predictor of improved outcomes in acute respiratory failure. Am J Med Sci. 2011;341(5):373-7.
  13. Pederson JL, Padwal RS, Warkentin LM, Holroyd-Leduc JM, Wagg A, Khadaroo RG. The impact of delayed mobilization on post-discharge outcomes after emergency abdominal surgery: A prospective cohort study in older patients. PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0241554.
  14. Epstein HJ, Fleischer AJ. The disadvantages of the prolonged period of postpartum rest in bed. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1927;14(3):360-3.
  15. Pashikanti L, Von Ah D. Impact of early mobilization protocol on the medical-surgical inpatient population: an integrated review of literature. Clin Nurs Spec. 2012;26(2):87-94.
  16. Jønsson LR, Ingelsrud LH, Tengberg LT, Bandholm T, Foss NB, Kristensen MT. Physical performance following acute high-risk abdominal surgery: a prospective cohort study. Can J Surg. 2018;61(1):42.
  17. The benefits of early mobilization. UCLA Health.
  18. Arias M, Smith LN. Early mobilization of acute stroke patients. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16(2):282-8.
  19. Adler J, Malone D. Early mobilization in the intensive care unit: a systematic review. Cardiopulm Phys Ther J. 2012;23(1):5.
  20. Liew SM, Mordiffi SZ, Ong YJ, Lopez V. Nurses’ perceptions of early mobilisation in the adult Intensive Care Unit: A qualitative study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2021;66:103039.
  21. Li J, Wu X, Li Z, Zhou X, Cao J, Jia Z, et al. Nursing resources and major immobility complications among bedridden patients: A multicenter descriptive study in China. J Nurs Manag. 2019;27(5):930-8.
  22. Najjar C, Dima D, Goldfarb M. Patient and Family Perspectives on Early Mobilization in Acute Cardiac Care. CJC Open. 2022;4(2):230-6.
  23. Alugubelli NR, Al-Ani A, Needham DM, Parker AM. Understanding early goal-directed mobilization in the surgical intensive care unit. Ann Transl Med. 2017;5(7).
  24. Selikson S, Damus K, Hamerman D. Risk factors associated with immobility. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1988;36(8):707-12.
  25. Burtin C, Clerckx B, Robbeets C, Ferdinande P, Langer D, Troosters T, et al. Early exercise in critically ill patients enhances short-term functional recovery. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(9):2499-505.
  26. Cusack R, Bates A, Mitchell K, van Willigen Z, Denehy L, Hart N, et al. A Feasibility Study of Early Mobilisation Programmes in Critical Care. Clinical Trails. 2022.