↓ Skip to main content

A feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial to examine the impact of the ABCDE bundle on quality of life in ICU survivors

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
Title
A feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial to examine the impact of the ABCDE bundle on quality of life in ICU survivors
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40814-017-0224-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kellie Sosnowski, Marion L. Mitchell, Hayden White, Lynette Morrison, Joanne Sutton, Jessica Sharratt, Frances Lin

Abstract

Early rehabilitation has been found to prevent delirium and weakness that can hamper the recovery of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Integrated clinical practice guidelines for managing patient pain, agitation and delirium (PAD) have been developed. The Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility (ABCDE) bundle provides a strategy to implement PAD guidelines into everyday clinical practice. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of the ABCDE bundle in the literature.The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomised controlled trial comparing the ABCDE bundle to standard care in an ICU. Trial feasibility was defined as the successful recruitment and retention of trial participants, adherence to the intervention, identification of barriers to the intervention, and the rigorous collection of outcome data. A prospective, single-centre, randomised controlled feasibility study was conducted. Thirty adult mechanically ventilated participants were recruited from an eight-bed ICU in south east Queensland, Australia, between April 2015 and December 2015. Participants were randomised to receive either the ABCDE bundle or standard routine management. The ABCDE bundle integrated prescribed awakening and breathing trials, delirium monitoring and management, and prescribed exercise and mobility regimes. Feasibility outcomes measured included recruitment and retention rates, intervention fidelity, and the feasibility of participant outcome data collection. Outcome measurement assessors were blinded to participant assignment. It was not possible to blind the research team or the participant to group assignment. In total, 30 (81.1%) of 37 eligible participants consented and were randomised to the intervention group (n = 15) or the control group (n = 15). Of these, 23 (76.6%) participants successfully completed the 90-day post discharge assessment. A lengthy recruitment period of 8 months was related to overly stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria. Intervention adherence exceeded defined success rates with participation in awakening and breathing trials, delirium monitoring and exercise interventions performed on 80.2, 97.4 and 90.2% of ventilated days respectively. Outcome assessments were successfully and accurately performed at ICU and hospital discharge and 90-day post hospital discharge. Intervention participants were deemed to be delirious on 39.6% of mechanically ventilated days indicating a requirement for a scripted regime to prevent delirium. With minor adjustment of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the inclusion of delirium management protocols, and encouragement of family engagement and involvement, a large-scale definitive randomised controlled trial to test the impact of the ABCDEF bundle will be feasible. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12614000763640 Date registered 17/08/2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Researcher 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 59 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 50 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 20%
Psychology 6 4%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 62 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,749,606
of 23,937,668 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#212
of 1,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,810
of 448,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#6
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,937,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 448,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.