Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 51-8 | Page 64

600 J. Wu et al. Both intervention and control groups had the same access to weekend physiotherapy as part of usual care, which prioritizes patients discharging home. No routine occupational therapy was available to any participants on the acute ward over weekends. Participants were not blinded to group allocation. Outcome measures A baseline assessment was completed with all participants by a blinded assessor within 72 hours of transfer from the ICU. Baseline measures included: premorbid Lawton’s Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale (15); the Functional Indepen- dence Measure (FIM) (16); the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) to assess for the presence/absence of delirium (17); and the Medical Research Council (MRC) muscle scale (18) to assess for the presence/absence of ICU-acquired weakness (defined as MRC sum score < 48 (19)). Additional data were extracted from participants’ medical records, including principal diagnosis of admission, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (20) (a global measure of illness severity), and duration of delirium (based on daily CAM-ICU assessment (17)). LOS was collected from the medical records. ICU LOS re- fers to the first admission to ICU (if there was more than one admission to ICU). Acute LOS refers to all acute care days (in- cluding ICU readmission(s)) before acute discharge or transfer to inpatient rehabilitation. Total LOS refers to all admitted bed days including transfers back to acute care from rehabilitation and subsequent acute care days if they were transferred to another hospital. In order to monitor fidelity and describe the rehabilitation treat- ments received by each participant, therapy dosage was collected from each participant’s medical record and quantified as the number of therapy occasions of service undertaken by discipline. During their acute ward admission, the physical activity of each participant was quantified using a physical activity monitor, the activPAL™ (AP; Physical Activity Technologies, Glasgow, UK), worn on the thigh. This device has been validated and shown to accurately differentiate between time spent sitting/ lying, standing and stepping, even in sedentary populations (21). Research staff applied the activity monitors to participants and collected activity data for a 24-hour period once per week on a weekday, over the course of their acute hospital admission. All participants were assessed on the ward by an unblinded assessor at the time of discharge from the acute hospital (re- gardless of whether they were discharged home or transferred to inpatient rehabilitation). Discharge assessments included the FIM; ICU-acquired weakness (via MRC sum score); Timed Up and Go Test (22) and 6-minutes walk test (23) for physical function; and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 21 (24) (DASS-21) for psychological status. Discharge destination and LOS were also collected. Longer term outcomes were measured at 6 and 12 months. Assessments were conducted via phone by a blinded assessor, and included: the DASS-21; Lawton’s Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale (15); and 2 quality of life scales, the Short Form-12 (SF-12 v2) (25) and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL-4D) (26) questionnaire. The principal study investigator (JW) provided staff training, a written assessment protocol, standard equipment and regular monitoring to ensure measurement accuracy and consistency between assessors. Data analyses The primary outcome for this trial was total hospital LOS (days), including days in the acute hospital admission, and any inpatient www.medicaljournals.se/jrm rehabilitation (where it was required). Secondary outcomes included: change between baseline and discharge FIM; ICU- acquired weakness, discharge Timed-Up and Go; discharge 6-minute walk; discharge DASS-21; and discharge destination. Analyses of follow-up data at 6 and 12 months were used to supplement those at the primary endpoint of hospital discharge. Process measures quantifying therapy delivery, intensity and physical activity were used to enable accurate description of the intervention that was delivered to each group. Groups were compared at hospital discharge and at follow- up using Mann–Whitney U tests for non-normally distributed variables, and χ 2 analyses for categorical variables. Analyses of outcome data were by intention-to-treat. Longitudinal changes in continuous data (e.g. FIM, DASS-21) were analysed using repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs), with factors of time and group. Analyses were performed using SPSS v21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and results were considered significant where p < 0.05. Given that this was a feasibility pilot study, no formal power calculation was performed for this trial. Rather, the aim was to recruit all eligible participants over a 12-month period in order to generate the preliminary data required to perform formal power analyses for a subsequent larger trial. Power calcula- tions were performed using our pilot data to model sample size requirements for a future randomized controlled trial of in-reach rehabilitation using LOS as a primary outcome. Calculations were performed in GPower (accessed via http: //www.gpower. hhu.de/), using a non-parametric 2-sample t-test model, with a power of 80% and a significance threshold of α < 0.05. RESULTS Flow of participants through the trial Between May 2015 and August 2016, a total of 209 ICU survivors with a LOS of at least 5 days were screened (Fig. 1). Of the 89 patients who were eligible for the study, 66 (74.2%) consented to participate. Four patients subsequently died in acute care, and were not included in the analyses. Follow-up assessments were completed for all participants by October 2017. Baseline characteristics The study cohort was comprised 43 males and 23 females, mean age 55 (standard deviation (SD) 13) years. Baseline comparisons between the intervention and control groups are presented in Table I. There were no significant between-group differences for any demographic or clinical variables at baseline. Prior to enrolment, the pooled cohort spent a mean of 9.7 (SD 5.0) days in ICU. Dose of therapy and activity levels The mean number of days from ICU discharge to commencement of the in-reach rehabilitation team was 2.0 (SD 1.4) days. The in-reach team was invol- ved in patient care for a mean of 11.3 (SD 8.7) days. Participants receiving in-reach rehabilitation stayed