How effective and safe is telerehabilitation for people with COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 conditions? Systematic review of randomised trials. People with COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 conditions. Any type of telerehabilitation. Satisfaction, quality of life, adverse events, adherence to telerehabilitation, dyspnoea, functional performance, readmissions, mortality, pulmonary function and level of independence. Database searches retrieved 2,962 records, of which six trials with 323 participants were included in the review. Breathing exercises delivered via telerehabilitation improved 6-minute walk distance (MD 101 m, 95% CI 61 to 141; two studies), 30-second sit-to-stand test performance (MD 2.2 repetitions, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.8; two studies), Multidimensional Dyspnoea-12 questionnaire scores (MD –6, 95% CI –7 to –5; two studies) and perceived effort on the 0-to-10 Borg scale (MD –2.8, 95% CI –3.3 to –2.3; two studies), with low certainty of evidence. Exercise delivered via telerehabilitation improved 6-minute walk distance (MD 62 m, 95% CI 42 to 82, four studies), 30-second sit-to-stand test performance (MD 2.0 repetitions, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.7; two studies) and Multidimensional Dyspnoea-12 scores (MD –1.8, 95% CI –2.5 to –1.1; one study), with low certainty of evidence. Adverse events were almost all mild or moderate and occurred with similar frequency in the telerehabilitation group (median 0 per participant, IQR 0 to 2.75) as in the control group (median 0 per participant, IQR 0 to 2); Hodges-Lehmann median difference 0 (95% CI 0 to 0), with low certainty of evidence. Telerehabilitation may improve functional capacity, dyspnoea, performance and physical components of quality of life and does not substantially increase adverse events. PROSPERO CRD42021271049.

Delirium, an acute brain dysfunction, is proposed to be highly prevalent in clinical care and shown to significantly increase the risk of mortality and dementia. To report on the global prevalence of clinically documented delirium and delirium-related clinical practices in wards caring for paediatric and adult patients in healthcare facilities. A prospective, cross-sectional, 39-question survey completed on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023. Clinicians or researchers with access to clinical data. The primary outcome was the prevalence of clinically documented delirium at 8:00 a.m. (4 h) and 8:00 p.m. (±4 h). Secondary outcomes included delirium-related care practices and barriers to use. Descriptive statistics were calculated and multilevel modelling was completed. 1664 wards submitted surveys from 44 countries, reporting on delirium assessments at 8:00 a.m. (n = 36 048) and 8:00 p.m. (n = 32 867); 61% reported use of validated delirium assessment tools. At 8:00 a.m., 18% (n = 2788/15 458) and at 8:00 p.m., 17.7% (n = 2454/13 860) were delirium positive. Top prevention measures were pain management (86.7%), mobilisation (81.4%) and adequate fluids (80.4%). Frequently reported pharmacologic interventions were benzodiazepines (52.7%) and haloperidol (46.2%). Top barriers included the shortage of staff (54.3%), lack of time to educate staff (48.6%) and missing knowledge about delirium (38%). In this study, approximately one out of five patients were reported as delirious. The reported high use of benzodiazepines needs further evaluation as it is not aligned with best-practice recommendations. Findings provide a benchmark for future quality improvement projects and research.

Objective: To describe clinical characteristics, resource use, outcomes, and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit. Methods: Retrospective single-center cohort study conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. All consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to the intensive care unit, between March 4, 2020 and February 28, 2021 were included in this study. Patients were categorized between survivors and non-survivors according to hospital discharge. Results: During the [...] ABSTRACT Objective: To describe clinical characteristics, resource use, outcomes, and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit. Methods: Retrospective single-center cohort study conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. All consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to the intensive care unit, between March 4, 2020 and February 28, 2021 were included in this study. Patients were categorized between survivors and non-survivors according to hospital discharge. Results: During the

Introduction: The scales to measure functional mobility in critically ill patients were developed and validated in English, there is a need for these tools in Spanish speaking countries. Objective: To perform translation, cultural adaptation and inter-rater reliability of the Spanish versions of the Perme Intensive Care Unit Mobility Score and IMS tools in ICU patients. Methods: Translation and validation study between November 2016 and July 2017, following the COSMIN Protocol's recommendations. Two couples of physiotherapists with the role of observer/rater applied both scales in 150 patients upon admission and discharge of a medicalsurgical ICU from a private hospital in Colombia. The sample size was defined taking into account the lowest proportion of reported agreement (68.57%), a Kappa index of 0.2784 or higher to ensure that the calculated n was adequate, and a confidence level of 95% Results: Translation and cultural adaptation were performed, the final version of both scales in Spanish was approved by the authors. The sample was 150 patients, 52% were men, the average age was 58 ± 17 years, invasive mechanical ventilation was present in 63 (42%) of the cases. Inter-rater reliability of the ICU Mobility Scale was between 0.97 and 1.00, and for the Perme Intensive Care Unit the Mobility Score it was between 0.99 and 1 in the two moments of the measurements. Conclusions: Both scales were translated and culturally adapted and presented excellent inter-rater reliability in the two pairs of raters (rater/observer).

In December 2019, a series of patients with severe pneumonia were identified in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, who progressed to severe acute respiratory syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Subsequently, COVID-19 was attributed to a new betacoronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Approximately 20% of patients diagnosed as COVID-19 develop severe forms of the disease, including acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, severe acute respiratory syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute renal failure and require intensive care. There is no randomized controlled clinical trial addressing potential therapies for patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection at the time of publishing these treatment recommendations. Therefore, these recommendations are based predominantly on the opinion of experts (level C of recommendation).

Introduction: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is evolving rapidly worldwide. Data on the mobility level of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU) are needed. Objective: To describe the mobility level of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU and to address factors associated with mobility level at the time of ICU discharge. Methods: Single center, retrospective cohort study. Consecutive patients admitted to the ICU with confirmed COVID-19 infection were analyzed. The mobility status was assessed by the Perme Score at admission and discharge from ICU with higher scores indicating higher mobility level. The Perme Mobility Index (PMI) was calculated [PMI = ΔPerme Score (ICU discharge–ICU admission)/ICU length of stay]. Based on the PMI, patients were divided into two groups: “Improved” (PMI > 0) and “Not improved” (PMI ≤ 0). Results: A total of 136 patients were included in this analysis. The hospital mortality rate was 16.2%. The Perme Score improved significantly when comparing ICU discharge with ICU admission [20.0 (7–28) points versus 7.0 (0–16) points; P < 0.001]. A total of 88 patients (64.7%) improved their mobility level during ICU stay, and the median PMI of these patients was 1.5 (0.6–3.4). Patients in the improved group had a lower duration of mechanical ventilation [10 (5–14) days versus 15 (8–24) days; P = 0.021], lower hospital length of stay [25 (12–37) days versus 30 (11–48) days; P < 0.001], and lower ICU and hospital mortality rate. Independent predictors for mobility level were lower age, lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, and not having received renal replacement therapy. Conclusion: Patients’ mobility level was low at ICU admission; however, most patients improved their mobility level during ICU stay. Risk factors associated with the mobility level were age, comorbidities, and use of renal replacement therapy.