Elsevier

Physiotherapy

Volume 99, Issue 1, March 2013, Pages 33-41
Physiotherapy

The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx): validation of an innovative new tool to measure physical morbidity in the general adult critical care population; an observational proof-of-concept pilot study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2012.01.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

To develop a scoring system to measure physical morbidity in critical care – the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx).

Method

The development process was iterative involving content validity indices (CVI), a focus group and an observational study of 33 patients to test construct validity against the Medical Research Council score for muscle strength, peak cough flow, Australian Therapy Outcome Measures score, Glasgow Coma Scale score, Bloomsbury sedation score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Short Form 36 (SF-36) score, days of mechanical ventilation and inter-rater reliability.

Participants

Trauma and general critical care patients from two London teaching hospitals.

Results

Users of the CPAx felt that it possessed content validity, giving a final CVI of 1.00 (P < 0.05). Construct validation data showed moderate to strong significant correlations between the CPAx score and all secondary measures, apart from the mental component of the SF-36 which demonstrated weak correlation with the CPAx score (r = 0.024, P = 0.720). Reliability testing showed internal consistency of α = 0.798 and inter-rater reliability of κ = 0.988 (95% confidence interval 0.791 to 1.000) between five raters.

Conclusion

This pilot work supports proof of concept of the CPAx as a measure of physical morbidity in the critical care population, and is a cogent argument for further investigation of the scoring system.

Introduction

Critical illness frequently results in impaired neuromuscular function and hence debilitation [1], [2], [3], [4]. This phenomenon is commonly known as intensive care unit acquired weakness (ICU-AW).

In March 2009, the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) introduced Clinical Guideline 83 (CG83), entitled ‘Rehabilitation after critical illness’, which aims to optimise the management of ICU-AW [5]. It recommends early identification of patients at risk of physical morbidity by regular short clinical assessments at intervals throughout the patient's hospital stay. Once identified as ‘at risk’, a comprehensive physical assessment should be completed, and a structured patient-specific rehabilitation programme commenced. Progress should be monitored using patient-agreed goals and should be reviewed regularly.

NICE CG83 was a long-awaited guideline and a milestone in the management of ICU-AW. However, the document highlights the lack of validated assessment tools and paucity of evidence-based rehabilitation practices in the critically ill population. For example, Section 2.1 (p. 23) of CG83 focuses on identifying screening and assessment tools to assess physical morbidity. Only one research article [6] was considered to be sufficiently scientifically robust for inclusion; this looked at the Rivermead Motor Index and even this ‘should be interpreted with caution due to its ill-defined inclusion criteria and small population’. The lack of a validated assessment tool poses a significant obstacle to the practical application of CG83, preventing its implementation in a standardised manner at a national level. Further implications include the lack of an objective marker for standardisation of patient management and health economic assessment. It also has implications in the research setting.

The most commonly accepted scoring system for the assessment of muscle function is the Medical Research Council (MRC) score for muscle strength [7]. This score looks solely at strength, and as patients may learn to be functional in the absence of strength, its generalisability and validity for measuring physical morbidity is questionable. More importantly, it is time consuming and relies on a degree of co-operation and cognitive function. From the patient perspective, it may be considered relatively abstract and difficult to interpret. Other measures that have been trialled, such as the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure, lack sensitivity in patients with low levels of function, and/or they have not been validated or reliability tested in a critically ill population [8], [9].

The most realistic attempts to address the lack of validated assessment tools in critical care are the Physical Functional ICU Test (PFIT) [10] and the University of Rochester Acute Care Evaluation (URACE) [11]. The PFIT relies on the patient being able to stand up from a chair and march on the spot. These tasks may be difficult for patients in the acute phases of critical illness, and published results only exist for a very small sample size (n = 13). The URACE is a scoring system that grades people's independence with bed mobility, transfers (bed to chair), locomotion and stairs. It has not been tested for reliability and validity, and no patient data have been published to date. It was also developed with input from clinicians at a single hospital site in the USA; thus, its generalisability is questionable.

There is an obvious and urgent need for a practical, holistic and reproducible bedside measure of physical morbidity. This could facilitate patient assessment, highlighting problem areas and guiding rehabilitation; help to monitor progress; and form an objective measurement that is intelligible between clinical specialties and service users.

The aim of this pilot study was to develop a bedside scoring system to grade physical morbidity in the critical care population – the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx).

Section snippets

Methods

This study involved several stages. For clarity, this paper is presented with the method followed by the results for each stage in order of completion.

The CPAx was developed using a pragmatic iterative process recommended by Streiner and Norman [12] and mimicking a modified Delphi technique (Fig. 1, see online supplementary material). The final version of the CPAx is shown in Appendix 1.

Discussion

The CPAx score demonstrated moderate to strong significant positive correlations with GCS score, sedation score (−3 to 1), muscle strength, AusTOMs score, SF-36 (physical component) score and peak cough flow. It also demonstrated a significant negative correlation with SOFA score and the number of days of mechanical ventilation. These results combined suggest validity in the assessment of overall physical morbidity.

Equally importantly, the CPAx score has been endorsed by physiotherapists

Conclusion

This preliminary work demonstrates proof of concept of the CPAx. As a pilot study, it provides a cogent argument for investigating this assessment system further in large multicentre studies. Future work should focus on clinician and patient perceptions of the CPAx, further reliability testing, expert review of the CPAx, and predictive validity for hospital outcome.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the input of those involved in the development of the CPAx: Ms. Bronwen Connolly, Mr. Gareth Jones, Ms. Alex Curtis; and the support of the clinical teams at the Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, the Royal London Hospital and St George's University of London.
Ethical approval: Camden and Islington Research Ethics Committee (Ref. No. 10/H0722/34).
Conflict of interest: None declared.

References (25)

  • E.H. Skinner et al.

    Development of an outcome measure (the PFIT): an pilot exercise training protocol for use in intensive care

    Crit Care Resusc

    (2009)
  • E.H. Dincer

    How should we deal with muscle weakness in critically ill patients?

    Crit Care Med

    (2009)
  • C. Winkelman

    Bed rest in health and critical illness

    AACN Adv Crit Care

    (2009)
  • R. Griffiths et al.

    Intensive care unit-acquired weaknesses

    Crit Care Med

    (2010)
  • G. Hermans et al.

    Clinical review: critical illness polyneuropathy and myopathy

    Crit Care

    (2008)
  • National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Rehabilitation after critical illness. London: NICE; 2009. Available at:...
  • F.M. Collen et al.

    The Rivermead Mobility Index: a further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment

    Int Disabil Stud

    (1991)
  • E. Fan et al.

    Inter-rater reliability of manual muscle strength testing in ICU survivors and simulated patients

    Intens Care Med

    (2010)
  • N.A. Black et al.

    Review of outcome measures used in adult critical Care

    Crit Care Med

    (2001)
  • J.A. Hayes et al.

    Outcome measures for adult critical care: a systematic review

    Health Technol Assess

    (2000)
  • J. DiCicco et al.

    University of Rochester Acute Care Evaluation: development of a new functional outcome measure for the acute care setting

    J Acute Care Phys Ther

    (2010)
  • D.L. Streiner et al.

    Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use

    (2008)
  • Cited by (103)

    • Screening tools for post–intensive care syndrome and post-traumatic symptoms in intensive care unit survivors: A scoping review

      2023, Australian Critical Care
      Citation Excerpt :

      Overall, five tools demonstrated evidence of validity for physical impairment post ICU, whereas the measures of validity were weak in another two tools. Specifically, the CPAx showed good construct validity to assess the physical impairment in ICU survivors.48,49 The CPAx demonstrated excellent content validity and has a limited floor-and-ceiling effect to detect functional change throughout critical illness, implying usefulness in monitoring patients' functional recovery overtime.

    • Quantification of changes in functional capacity and muscle strength in patients: a burn intensive care unit cohort study

      2022, Burns
      Citation Excerpt :

      As a patient’s recovery progresses, scores increase accordingly. Previously, CPAx was validated for burn patients [10,11] and recently validated for use with the Brazilian population [12]. As part of the CPAx assessment, handgrip strength was performed using the Jamar Plus + Digital dynamometer (Preston, Jackson, Michigan, United States of America).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text