You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Quality improvement programme
Enhancing early functional independence following cardiac surgery: a quality improvement programme
  1. Prasobh Jacob1,
  2. Praveen Jayaprabha Surendran1,
  3. Poonam Gupta2,
  4. Menandro Mahinay1,
  5. Ansel Lakindanum Sarmiento3,
  6. Asma Saif Ebrahim Abas3,
  7. Shady Ashraf Mohammed4,
  8. Hatem Hemdan Sarhan4,
  9. Julie Ureta1,
  10. Gigi Mathew1,
  11. Ryan Oliver Antonio Galvez1,
  12. Parthasarathi Thangaraj1,
  13. Rajvir Singh5
  1. 1Cardiac Rehabilitation Department, Heart Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
  2. 2Quality and Patient Safety, Heart Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
  3. 3Nursing Department, Heart Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
  4. 4Cardiac-Thoracic Surgery Department, Heart Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
  5. 5Cardiology Research, Heart Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
  1. Correspondence to Prasobh Jacob; physioprasobh{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Early mobility and activity programmes following cardiac surgery are vital for improved patient outcomes, as they accelerate the recovery of functional capacity and walking distance. We observed that only 5.3% of our patients achieved a Functional Independence Measurement (FIM) score of 80% or more by the third postoperative day (POD). Additionally, the average 6-minute walk distance achieved by the fourth POD was only 188 m. Therefore, a quality improvement (QI) project was implemented with the aim of attaining a FIM score of 80% by the third POD for more than 80% of patient underwent/undergoing cardiac surgery without complications.

A model-for-improvement framework was used to drive continuous improvement. This project was implemented in February 2021. Baseline data were prospectively collected between November 2020 and January 2021 (preintervention). Outcomes were analysed using standard control chart rules to detect changes over time. Unpaired Student t-tests assessed significant differences in mean levels between two groups, (preintervention vs postintervention).χ2 tests were conducted between the two groups according to gender and patient satisfaction scores.

The percentage of patients who achieved a FIM score of 80% or more by the third POD gradually increased to 91.4% 5 months following programme implementation and was sustained thereafter. The mean patient FIM score significantly improved to 81.20±3.77 (p<0.001) by the third POD. Similarly, the mean 6-minute walk distance increased to 267.90±36.10 m (p<0.001) by the fourth POD. The percentage of patients who displayed the level of confidence needed to carry out activities of daily living (ADL) and exercises independently at home increased to 89.4% (p<0.001) by the fifth POD. No adverse events associated with the mobility and activity programme were reported.

This QI project demonstrated a substantial improvement in patient functional independence, walking distance and the level of confidence needed to independently carry out ADL and exercises following cardiac surgery.

  • Continuous quality improvement
  • Coronary Disease
  • Surgery

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2022-002190

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

    • Pulmonary, cardiac and neurological issues are the most common complications during the early postoperative period following cardiac surgery. Early mobility and activity programmes can minimise or prevent these complications. However, despite supporting evidence and guidelines, adopting a structured mobilisation and activity programme can be challenging.

    WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

    • This study highlights the common barriers that prevent the implementation of early mobility and activity programmes. It also demonstrates the importance of a structured quality improvement approach that involves multidisciplinary teams in facilitating the implementation of mobility and activity programmes.

    HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

    • This study shows that implementing a mobility and activity programme positively impacts a patient’s functional independence and improves their confidence level to carry out activities of daily living and home exercise programmes. It has also been our experience that the involvement of front-line staff in finding solutions to overcome barriers, and involving the patient and family as part of the team, will substantially contribute to the successful implementation of an early mobilisation and activity programme.

    Background

    Globally, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of mortality, morbidity and economic loss.1 2 The overall number of cardiac surgical procedures is predicted to increase at a rate of approximately 5% per year, eventually reaching over 1.3 million in 2026.3 Cardiac surgery has been shown to minimise the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, enhance quality of life (QOL) and reduce the need for repeat revascularisation.4–6

    The risk factors for cardiac surgery related postoperative problems remain significant.7 Pulmonary, cardiac and neurological issues are the most common complications in the early postoperative period, contributing to delays in hospital discharge and functional recovery.7 Following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), many patients experience depressive symptoms, which is linked to poor QOL.8 9 Furthermore, the effect of these complications can last more than a year after surgery10 11 as the postoperative period is relatively difficult for patients due to pain and restrictions on using their arms after a sternotomy.12 13 Mobility and activity programmes have, however, had a substantial impact in preventing or mitigating these complications.14–19 It has been shown that early mobilisation is a safe, feasible and effective intervention following cardiac surgery.15 16 20 21 However, despite supporting evidence, implementing a structured mobilisation and activity programme can be challenging due to barriers related to the patient, staff and/or the process.22 23

    Early mobility and activity programmes refer to those that are initiated when a patient has minimal ability to engage in therapy, but a stable haemodynamic status and acceptable oxygen levels.24 These programmes include gradual mobilisation from sitting upright in bed to standing, progressive ambulation, an active exercise programme, activities of daily living (ADL) training and breathing exercises. They accelerate the recovery of functional capacity and walking distance by improving cardiac function, ventilation and respiratory muscle strength.15 16 25 26 Moreover, early mobility interventions have been shown to reduce and prevent pain, pleural effusion, hospital-acquired infections, pressure injuries, blood sugar levels, surgical site infections and delirium, which eventually reduce the length of hospital stays and enhance patient satisfaction.14–16 19 24 Thus, the implementation of a mobility and activity programme is essential following cardiac surgery.

    Problem description

    Early attainment of functional independence improves patient confidence in carrying out ADL, thereby reducing hospital readmissions and enhancing QOL.27–29 Baseline data collected from 75 patients revealed that only 5.3% had achieved a Functional Independence Measure (FIM) score of 80% or more by the third postoperative day (POD). In addition, the average 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) test achieved on the fourth POD was only 188 m. Patients also exhibited low level of confidence in carrying out ADL at the time of discharge. The baseline survey further revealed that only 21.4% of the patients were confident in carrying out ADL on the fifth POD. There was no standard mobility or activity programme for postoperative patients transferred to high dependency unit from the cardiothoracic intensive care unit (CTICU). This affected mobilisation and activity initiation time, progression of mobilisation and total mobilisation time. Furthermore, the level of functional independence and ambulation distance were not assessed at the appropriate time before discharge. Therefore, our team identified this as an improvement area and implemented a quality improvement (QI) programme to assist patients in achieving early functional independence.

    Settings

    Our high-dependency surgical unit has 20 beds that serve postcardiac surgery patients. Hospital performs surgeries on more than 500 patients per year. The surgeries include CABG, valve repair and replacement, aortic dissection, and implantation of mechanical and circulatory devices. Patients are transferred from the operating room to the CTICU where they receive a structured activity and mobilisation programme.30 Patients are then transferred to high-dependency surgical units once they are haemodynamically stable. This project was undertaken as part of a value improvement initiative.31

    Rationale

    Functional independence can be defined as an individual’s ability to perform ADL.32 For this intervention, FIM used to identify disabilities in ADL during rehabilitation. These are considered a primary functional status measure in rehabilitation because of their relative objectivity, simplicity and relevance to patients.33 FIM analyse the effectiveness of independently performing daily routines rather than the ability to perform ADL.34 Functional independence has been linked to QOL and personal satisfaction,27 and the FIM is a validated tool used to assess functional independence.35 36

    Various studies have shown the significance of ambulation distance following cardiac surgery.37–39 Patients who walk less than 1308 steps per day at the time of discharge are 7.58 times more likely to require rehospitalisation than patients who walk more than 1308 steps per day.37 Early ambulation after valve replacement surgery appears to be associated with a higher functional status at hospital discharge.38 40 Moreover, patients who receive ambulation combined with other activities have shown greater improvement in functional capacity, pulmonary function and muscle strength than those who only performed inspiratory muscle training or did not undergo any intervention.40 41

    The QOL of post-cardiac surgery patients may deteriorate due to postoperative fatigue and pain,42 and functional capacity has been used to evaluate postsurgical recovery related to QOL.43 Walk tests are a simple and efficient method to estimate functional capacity.39 44 In particular, the 6MWD test can rapidly quantify postsurgical recovery.45 Depending on a patient’s capacity or inability to complete it, the 6MWD test has been used to predict the likelihood of postoperative problems and mortality in patients undergoing heart surgery.39 44 Distances ≥300 m covered during the 6MWD test are considered to be predictive of increased survival at 5 years of follow-up for elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery.46 Hence, as a predictor of hospitalisation and death from cardiopulmonary diseases, the 6MWD test is a simple, safe, practical and validated sub-maximal exercise test for patients.47

    Aim statement

    This QI programme aimed to attain a FIM score of 80%* on the third POD for more than 80% of cardiac surgery patients without complications to the high-dependency surgical unit in our cardiac centre by December 2021.

    *FIM score of 80%

    • Modified independence (score of 6) in self-care (excluding bathing), sphincter control, mobility and locomotion (excluding stairs and wheelchairs)

    • Complete independence (score of 7) in communication and social cognition

    Objectives

    Our objectives included implementing evidence-based mobility and activity practices in the high-dependency surgical unit with the involvement of staff, patients and their families and having patients attain more than 250 m in the 6MWD test on the fourth POD.

    Inclusion and exclusion criteria

    Inclusion criteria:

    • All patients >14 years of age who underwent CABG and valve repair or replacement surgeries

    • Patients having an uncomplicated postoperative course

    • Patients without musculoskeletal or neurological complications that limited their mobility and activity

    • Patients with no cognitive impairments

    • Patients without postsurgical wound infections

    • Patients without external devices

    • Patients without persistent cardiac arrhythmias or haemodynamic instability that would prevent them from early mobilisation

    Exclusion criteria:

    • Patients who required more than 1 POD in the CTICU

    • Patients with pre-existing musculoskeletal or neurological limitations that limited their mobility and activity

    • Patients with pre-existing chronic pulmonary diseases limiting physical activity

    • Uncooperative patients

    • Patients who required assistive devices for mobility

    Methods

    This QI project is reported using SQUIRE guidelines. After identifying issues related to mobilisation and activity practices following cardiac surgery, a detailed analysis was carried out by a team of cardiac surgeons, physiotherapists, nurses, occupational therapists and quality advisors. Significant practice gaps were identified during brainstorming. The team used fishbone diagram (figure 1) and Pareto analysis (figure 2) to identify the root causes of practice gaps and prioritise change ideas. A model-for-improvement framework was used to drive continuous improvement. This model recommends structuring an improvement programme by formulating an aim statement, defining measures to understand changes in the improvement, and an appropriate selection of changes to be tested. Subsequently, Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were used to test changes. This project was implemented as a part of a Value Improvement Project.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Cause and effect analysis. FI, functional independence.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Pareto analysis.

    Changes tested

    A number of changes were tested using PDSA cycles. Our change ideas were based on the ‘4Is’, that is, Involving the patient, family and staff; Integrating the current evidence; Informing the patient and staff; and; Inspecting the programme outcome.

    1. PDSA 1. Formulating a standardised mobility and activity programme: To ensure an appropriate progression of activities and the mobilisation of patients, we formulated an evidence-based mobility and activity programme based on the day of surgery. This was developed using a systematic search for available evidence and expert consensus. Multidisciplinary expert panel was identified that included physicians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and nurses. Several members of this expert panel had also been involved in developing (and subsequently publishing) an early mobilisation of patients in the cardiothoracic critical care units.30 The mobility and activity levels comprised progressive mobilisation and ambulation and education concerning energy conservation and sternotomy progression, which started on the second POD. This programme was initially piloted on four patients. Table 1 lists the mobility and activity programme.16 19 41 48–50

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Mobilisation and activity programme16 19 41 48–50

    1. PDSA 2. Enhancing staff knowledge: A multifaceted education programme that included PowerPoint presentations, hands-on workshops and disseminating information through emails, huddles and unit meetings was provided to all staff regarding mobility and activity levels. A teach-back method was used to assess the effectiveness of the education and staff knowledge.

    2. PDSA 3. Appropriate documentation: Comprehensive documentation is essential for monitoring the progress and effectiveness of change ideas. As such, standardised documentation for patient medical records was implemented and compliance with documentation was monitored. The new documentation method ensured that the type of activity, frequency, distance and time of ambulation were recorded and readily available in the records. This PDSA facilitated adherence to and progression of the programme.

    3. PDSA 4. Patient family education: Providing information and explanations regarding surgical procedures and expected recovery following surgery, as well as information concerning anticipated challenges, has been shown to reduce patient anxiety and improve their cooperation with various interventions.51 52 Before surgery, a physiotherapist and occupational therapist educated patients on the details of the activity and mobility programme, its effect on their recovery following surgery, the precautions that should be taken, and the anticipated pain and fatigue experienced during the early postoperative period. However, this strategy did not work well for patients admitted in the evenings as the physiotherapy and occupational therapy sessions were unavailable. To overcome this issue, the physiotherapist and occupational therapist educated the nursing staff on the preoperative programme, and the nurses educated patients admitted in the evenings. A checklist was created to ensure all necessary information was given to patients and their families. A teach-back method using a questionnaire was developed to assess the effectiveness of patient and family education. As our patient population comprised multinationals speaking different languages, an institution language bank was used to overcome language barriers.

    4. PDSA 5. Visual clues: Visual feedback was used to remind the staff about the level of ambulation and the type of activities patients needed each day. This reminder also empowered and motivated patients to perform the desired activity and mobilisation.

      PDSA 5a. Floor marking: A floor marking was placed every metre to calculate the distance of ambulation achieved by patients. This helped the staff to document the progression of the ambulation distance and motivated patients to achieve further distances each day.

      PDSA 5b. Colour-coded flags: Colour-coded flags were fixed in the high-dependency surgical unit hallway and patient rooms. This reminded staff and patients about appropriate mobilisation practices.

      PDSA 5c. Whiteboard: A whiteboard was placed in patient rooms where staff recorded the desired walking distance and the frequency of mobility and activity of each patient per day. Patients were also encouraged to record the distance and frequency of their mobility and activities per day. If they achieved the desired amount of exercise, a smiley face would be affixed to the board.

    5. PDSA 6. Better pain control: Patient pain is a central barrier when implementing a mobility and activity programme. Pain may lead to a lack of patient participation and facilitate haemodynamic instability (eg, tachycardia, tachypnea and increased blood pressure).53

      PDSA 6a. Pain assessment: Mandatory pain assessment using a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)54 was used before initiating activity or mobilisation to facilitate the need for appropriate pain control measures. Patients were mobilised when they had an NRS score of 3 or less. Appropriate pain medications were given if required. This practice ensured that patients were mobilised only when the test was adopted and the desired NRS score was achieved.

    6. PDSA 7. Colour-coded risk categorisation system: A colour-coded risk categorisation system55 56 was used to facilitate the clinical decision-making process and to prevent potentially adverse events while implementing the programme. Three risk categories were included: green indicated low risk, yellow represented a potential risk and red indicated a significant risk. If the patient was in the red category, a physician’s advice was sought before initiating the programme.

    Display of data

    Data collected by the team were placed in run charts, displayed in the unit’s QI board and presented in weekly QI huddles. The data were also communicated to all members of the multidisciplinary team through emails. This was important for staff motivation and to increase team participation with new improvement ideas. It also encouraged staff to adhere to the programme.

    Continuing education

    Continuous in-service education regarding the programme was delivered during unit meetings of the multidisciplinary team. New staff was trained on the guidelines and protocols of early mobility. Updates on new techniques were addressed through the electronic circulation of recent, relevant articles.

    Study of the intervention

    Outcome measures

    The outcome measures were the percentage of eligible patients who achieved a FIM score greater than 80% on the third POD and a 6MWD on the fourth POD. Each week, the data were gathered retrospectively.

    Process measures

    The tested changes were assessed using both qualitative and quantitative measures. The compliance rates for FIM and the 6MWD were measured. Similarly, the feasibility and success of each change tested were assessed by collecting subjective impressions from front-line staff.

    Balance measures

    The balance measures used in this project were:

    • The level of confidence to carry out ADL and exercises independently at home on the fifth POD. This was assessed using a questionnaire (online supplemental appendix 1) with a Likert Scale rating of 5 points (strongly agree to strongly disagree). To understand the level of confidence, we considered only the percentage of patients who rated strongly agree and agree.

    • Adverse events associated with the mobility and activity programme. Adverse events were defined as a fall incident, cardiac arrest, new onset of cardiac arrhythmia, accidental removal of invasive lines and tubes, loss of consciousness or hypotension requiring an escalation of inotropes.57

    Supplemental material

    Statistical analysis

    Project outcomes were analysed using standard control chart rules,58 which detect statistically significant changes in outcomes over time. Descriptive statistics for interval variables, including age, ejection fraction, FIM score and the 6MWD were calculated as means and SDs. Frequency distributions with percentages were used for categorical variables. Unpaired Student t-tests were used to assess significant differences in mean levels according to two groups (patients admitted between November 2020 to January 2021 vs February 2021 to March 2022). χ2 tests were conducted between these two groups and gender and patient satisfaction scores. A p value of 0.05 (two tailed) was considered statistically significant. The SPSS V.28.0 statistical package (IBM, Armonk, New York, USA) was used for the analysis.

    Results

    This programme was implemented in February 2021. There were 424 participants included in the programme between February 2021 and March 2022. Baseline data were prospectively collected from 75 patients between November 2020 and January 2021.

    FIM score on the third POD

    The percentage of patients who achieved a FIM score of 80% or more on the third POD in February 2021 (following implementation of the programme) was 53.85%, which gradually increased to 75% in May 2021. This increased to 91.4% by June 2021 and was subsequently sustained at that level (figure 3). The average percentage of patients who achieved a FIM score of 80% or more on the third POD was 5.3% before implementation of the programme and increased to 86% after implementation. The mean FIM score of patients on the third POD was 73.71±4.81 (preintervention) and 81.20±3.77 (postintervention) (p<0.001) (tables 2 and 3).

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Run chart. CL, central line; FIM, Functional Independence Measurement; LCL, lower control limit; MAP, mobility and activity programme; UCL, upper control limit.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Patient characterstics and outcomes

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Percentage of improvement

    SixMinute walk distance

    The mean 6MWD on the fourth POD was 188.23±48.65 m preintervention and 267.90±36.10 m postintervention (p<0.001). Only 54% of the patients were able to complete the 6MWD test before programme implementation, which increased to 91% after implementation (tables 2 and 3).

    Balance measures

    No adverse events associated with the mobility and activity programme were reported. The percentage of patients who showed the level of confidence needed to carry out ADL and exercises independently at home on the fifth POD was 21.4% preintervention, which increased to 89.4% post intervention (p<0.001) (tables 2 and 3).

    Discussion

    This QI programme, based on the four pillars of Inform, Involve, Integrate and Inspect, significantly affected the attainment of early functional independence and improved the ambulation distance achieved by patients.

    Our results suggest that educating patients and their families about surgery, the recovery process and the activity and mobility programme was helpful. Various studies have shown that patients experience anxiety and fear over surgical outcomes. This psychological reaction can negatively affect pain sensation and the level of participation in exercise programmes.51 59 Preoperative education is associated with improved functional capacity and slightly reduced hospital length-of-stay.60 Hence, both patient and family education are necessary for better surgical outcomes.51 52 Similarly, a lack of staff confidence and knowledge is a primary barrier to early mobility and activity programmes.22 The incorporation of a multimodal educational programme for staff may facilitate better cooperation, participation and a change of mind set.

    When implementing a QI programme, involving patients and their families as members of a multidisciplinary team can empower patients, which is necessary for improved outcomes.61 62 We implemented floor markings, patient recordings of walking distances and their frequencies on whiteboards and used colour-coded flags to empower and motivate patients to perform appropriate activities and mobilisation. Moreover, multidisciplinary staff involvement was ensured during the preparation and implementation of evidence-based mobility and activity levels.

    Integrating scientific evidence into QI is critical for maximising the effect of a QI programme.63 We formulated an evidence-based mobility and activity level that ensured the appropriate and safe progression of mobility and activity levels of the patients. Various changes were tested and implemented that were also based on the available evidence.51 52 55 56

    Continuous monitoring of trends and deviations of quality indicators is critical for accomplishing programme goals.64 In our programme, this was done using standardised data collection sheets, while the project outcomes were analysed using standard control charts. This helped us decide whether to adopt or abandon the tested changes.

    This project focused on the early attainment of functional independence and improving ambulation distance. The attainment of early functional independence is a key factor in improving patient self-efficacy, confidence and QOL,27 while measuring ambulation distance is a reliable measure for understanding a patient’s functional capacity.46 Moreover, ambulation is considered the highest level of mobility.65 The current project uncovered a statistically significant improvement in the 6MWD after implementing the programme. It also showed that the mean 6MWD at the time of discharge was 267.90±36.10 m, which is similar to values reported in other studies.45 66 Improving walking distance can reduce postoperative complications following cardiac surgery.16 40 41 Therefore, this project had a substantial but not quantifiable impact on hospital costs.

    This QI project included participants of different ages, and patients who underwent cardiovascular surgeries, including CABG, valve replacements and aortic dissections. No serious adverse events were reported during the programme. This suggests that an early mobility and activity programme is safe and feasible irrespective of age or the type of cardiac surgery being performed. Additionally, this programme improved patient confidence levels when carrying out daily activities.

    Lessons learnt and limitations

    Limitations

    Despite the significant improvements that were achieved, this project had some limitations. It was a single-centre project, and the results may not be generalisable. However, the standardised mobility and activity programme were formulated using a systematic search of available evidence and an expert consensus process. Moreover, the implemented PDSAs were evidence based. We cannot be sure which tested change had the most impact and which had the least, as multiple interventions were tested concurrently. Furthermore, there was no control group. All eligible patients received the mobility and activity programme. It is also worth noting that the percentage of female patients included in this programme was only 1.7%. Compared with males, fewer female patients underwent cardiac surgery, and more of them required a stay longer than 1 POD in the CTICU, which was one of our exclusion criteria. Also, the survey tool used to measure levels of confidence was not validated. However, the tools used to measure the main outcomes (functional independence and ambulation distance) were validated. Lastly, the effect of this programme on hospital length of stay and cost was not analysed.

    Lessons learnt

    • An evidence-based QI programme is essential for implementing an early mobility and activity programme.

    • Empowering patients is fundamental for facilitating their participation and overcoming patient-related barriers.

    • Multidisciplinary collaboration is the cornerstone for creating and sustaining a culture of change.

    Conclusion

    A well-designed QI process is effective in implementing a mobility and activity programme in patients following cardiac surgery. This project facilitated the early attainment of functional independence and improved the ambulation distance of patients at the time of hospital discharge. Moreover, the programme positively affected the confidence level of patients needed to carry out ADL and independently perform home exercises following discharge. Informing and involving patients, their families and staff, along with integrating scientific evidence and monitoring progress, were the key factors for the success and sustainability of the programme. A continuous audit of the programme and training goals for new staff were implemented to sustain the improvement.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    Institutional review board review was not sought as all of the changes being tested were evidence-based and widely accepted internationally. There was no control group and, therefore, no randomisation to ensure that no patients would be denied a best practice intervention.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors acknowledge Heart Hospital and HHQI leadership, supervisors and front-line teams of the surgical high dependency unit, including physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and other allied health professionals, for their guidance and continuous support to this work.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Vervoort D,
      2. Meuris B,
      3. Meyns B, et al
      . Global cardiac surgery: access to cardiac surgical care around the world. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020;159:987–96. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.04.039
      OpenUrlPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Vos T,
      2. Lim SS,
      3. Abbafati C, et al
      . Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet 2020;396:1204–22. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Research iData
      . How many cardiac surgeries are performed each year? - new study by iData research. iData Research; 2021.
    4. ↵
      1. Head SJ,
      2. Milojevic M,
      3. Taggart DP, et al
      . Current practice of state-of-the-art surgical coronary revascularization. Circulation 2017;136:1331–45. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022572
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      1. Head SJ,
      2. Milojevic M,
      3. Daemen J, et al
      . Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. The Lancet 2018;391:939–48. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30423-9
      OpenUrl
    6. ↵
      1. Mark DB,
      2. Knight JD,
      3. Velazquez EJ, et al
      . Quality-of-life outcomes with coronary artery bypass graft surgery in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Ann Intern Med 2014;161:392–9. doi:10.7326/M13-1380
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Lisboa Cordeiro AL,
      2. Matos AA,
      3. Bispo Silva D, et al
      . Incidence of complications after cardiac surgery. IPMRJ 2020;5:25–8. doi:10.15406/ipmrj.2020.05.00224
      OpenUrl
    8. ↵
      1. Mendonça da Cunha DM,
      2. Dos Anjos TS,
      3. Franca Lisboa Gois C, et al
      . Depressive symptoms in patients with coronary artery disease. Invest Educ Enferm 2016;34:323–8. doi:10.17533/udea.iee.v34n2a12
      OpenUrl
    9. ↵
      1. Hweidi IM,
      2. Gharaibeh BA,
      3. Al-Obeisat SM, et al
      . Prevalence of depression and its associated factors in patients post-coronary artery bypass graft surgery. J Res Nurs 2018;23:76–88. doi:10.1177/1744987117728314
      OpenUrl
    10. ↵
      1. Seese L,
      2. Sultan I,
      3. Gleason TG, et al
      . The impact of major postoperative complications on long-term survival after cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2020;110:128–35. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.09.100
      OpenUrl
    11. ↵
      1. Pahwa S,
      2. Bernabei A,
      3. Schaff H, et al
      . Impact of postoperative complications after cardiac surgery on long‐term survival. J Card Surg 2021;36:2045–52. doi:10.1111/jocs.15471
      OpenUrl
    12. ↵
      1. Mortensen M,
      2. Sandvik RKNM,
      3. Svendsen ØS, et al
      . Return to work after coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement surgery: a scoping review. Scand J Caring Sci 2022;36:893–909. doi:10.1111/scs.13006
      OpenUrl
    13. ↵
      1. Andreasen JJ
      . Convalescence and sick leave following cardiac surgery. Ugeskr Laeger 2009;171:2910–3.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Moradian ST,
      2. Najafloo M,
      3. Mahmoudi H, et al
      . Early mobilization reduces the atelectasis and pleural effusion in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a randomized clinical trial. J Vasc Nurs 2017;35:141–5. doi:10.1016/j.jvn.2017.02.001
      OpenUrlPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Santos PMR,
      2. Ricci NA,
      3. Suster ÉAB, et al
      . Effects of early mobilisation in patients after cardiac surgery: a systematic review. Physiotherapy 2017;103:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.physio.2016.08.003
      OpenUrl
    16. ↵
      1. Borges MGB,
      2. Borges DL,
      3. Ribeiro MO, et al
      . Early mobilization prescription in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: systematic review. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg 2022;37:227–38. doi:10.21470/1678-9741-2021-0140
      OpenUrl
    17. ↵
      1. Kalisch BJ,
      2. Lee S,
      3. Dabney BW
      . Outcomes of inpatient mobilization: a literature review. J Clin Nurs 2014;23:1486–501. doi:10.1111/jocn.12315
      OpenUrlPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Wise RA,
      2. Brown CD
      . Minimal clinically important differences in the six-minute walk test and the incremental shuttle walking test. COPD 2005;2:125–9. doi:10.1081/copd-200050527
      OpenUrl
    19. ↵
      1. Hirschhorn AD,
      2. Richards D,
      3. Mungovan SF, et al
      . Supervised moderate intensity exercise improves distance walked at hospital discharge following coronary artery bypass graft surgery—a randomised controlled trial. Heart Lung Circ 2008;17:129–38. doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2007.09.004
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      1. Jacob P,
      2. Surendran PJ,
      3. E M MA, et al
      . Early mobilization of patients receiving vasoactive drugs in critical care units: a systematic review. J Acute Care Phys Ther 2021;12:37–48. doi:10.1097/JAT.0000000000000140
      OpenUrl
    21. ↵
      1. Yayla A,
      2. Özer N
      . Effects of early mobilization protocol performed after cardiac surgery on patient care outcomes. Int J Nurs Pract 2019;25:e12784. doi:10.1111/ijn.12784
    22. ↵
      1. Dubb R,
      2. Nydahl P,
      3. Hermes C, et al
      . Barriers and strategies for early mobilization of patients in intensive care units. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2016;13:724–30. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201509-586CME
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Bakhru RN,
      2. Wiebe DJ,
      3. McWilliams DJ, et al
      . An environmental scan for early mobilization practices in U.S. Crit Care Med 2015;43:2360–9. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001262
      OpenUrlPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Perme C,
      2. Chandrashekar R
      . Early mobility and walking program for patients in intensive care units: creating a standard of care. Am J Crit Care 2009;18:212–21. doi:10.4037/ajcc2009598
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      1. Doyle MP,
      2. Indraratna P,
      3. Tardo DT, et al
      . Safety and efficacy of aerobic exercise commenced early after cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2019;26:36–45. doi:10.1177/2047487318798924
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. ↵
      1. Herdy AH,
      2. Marcchi PLB,
      3. Vila A, et al
      . Pre- and postoperative cardiopulmonary rehabilitation in hospitalized patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2008;87:714–9. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181839152
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Kim K,
      2. Kim YM,
      3. Kim EK
      . Correlation between the activities of daily living of stroke patients in a community setting and their quality of life. J Phys Ther Sci 2014;26:417–9. doi:10.1589/jpts.26.417
      OpenUrl
    28. ↵
      1. Hoyer EH,
      2. Needham DM,
      3. Atanelov L, et al
      . Association of impaired functional status at hospital discharge and subsequent rehospitalization. J Hosp Med 2014;9:277–82. doi:10.1002/jhm.2152
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      1. Burke LG,
      2. Jha AK
      . Patients’ functional status and hospital readmissions. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:565. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7759
      OpenUrl
    30. ↵
      1. Jacob P,
      2. Gupta P,
      3. Shiju S, et al
      . Multidisciplinary, early mobility approach to enhance functional independence in patients admitted to a cardiothoracic intensive care unit: a quality improvement programme. BMJ Open Qual 2021;10:e001256. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001256
    31. ↵
      1. Gupta P,
      2. Chacko G,
      3. Mavin P, et al
      . Value improvement at the point of care: engaging and empowering front-line teams with a new quality improvement methodology. BMJ Open Qual 2021;10:e001233. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001233
    32. ↵
      1. Curzel J,
      2. Forgiarini Junior LA,
      3. Rieder M de M
      . Evaluation of functional independence after discharge from the intensive care unit. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva 2013;25:93–8. doi:10.5935/0103-507X.20130019
      OpenUrl
    33. ↵
      1. Han EY,
      2. Im SH
      . Effects of a 6-week aquatic treadmill exercise program on cardiorespiratory fitness and walking endurance in subacute stroke patients: a pilot trial. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev 2018;38:314–9. doi:10.1097/HCR.0000000000000243
      OpenUrl
    34. ↵
      1. Riberto M,
      2. Miyazaki MH,
      3. Jucá SSH, et al
      . Validation of the Brazilian version of functional independence measure. Acta Fisiátrica 2004;11:72–6. doi:10.5935/0104-7795.20040003
      OpenUrl
    35. ↵
      1. Dodds TA,
      2. Martin DP,
      3. Stolov WC, et al
      . A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation Inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:531–6. doi:10.1016/0003-9993(93)90119-u
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    36. ↵
      1. Sansone GR,
      2. Alba A,
      3. Frengley JD
      . Analysis of FIM instrument scores for patients admitted to an inpatient cardiac rehabilitation program. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:506–12. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.31183
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. Takahashi T,
      2. Kumamaru M,
      3. Jenkins S, et al
      . In-patient step count predicts re-hospitalization after cardiac surgery. J Cardiol 2015;66:286–91. doi:10.1016/j.jjcc.2015.01.006
      OpenUrlPubMed
    38. ↵
      1. Cordeiro ALL,
      2. Reis JRD,
      3. Cruz HBD, et al
      . Impact of early ambulation on functionality in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery. J Clin Transl Res 2021;7:754–8.
      OpenUrl
    39. ↵
      1. De Feo S,
      2. Tramarin R,
      3. Faggiano P, et al
      . The inability to perform a 6 minute walking test after cardio-thoracic surgery is a marker of clinical severity and poor outcome. data from the ISYDE-2008 Italian survey. Int J Cardiol 2011;151:115–6. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.06.024
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Miwa S,
      2. Visintainer P,
      3. Engelman R, et al
      . Effects of an ambulation orderly program among cardiac surgery patients. Am J Med 2017;130:1306–12. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.04.044
      OpenUrlPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. Zanini M,
      2. Nery RM,
      3. de Lima JB, et al
      . Effects of different rehabilitation protocols in inpatient cardiac rehabilitation after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a randomized clinical trial. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev 2019;39:E19–25. doi:10.1097/HCR.0000000000000431
      OpenUrl
    42. ↵
      1. Lindsay GM,
      2. Hanlon P,
      3. Smith LN, et al
      . Assessment of changes in general health status using the short-form 36 questionnaire 1 year following coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000;18:557–64. doi:10.1016/s1010-7940(00)00542-x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    43. ↵
      1. Järvinen O,
      2. Saarinen T,
      3. Julkunen J, et al
      . Changes in health-related quality of life and functional capacity following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003;24:750–6. doi:10.1016/s1010-7940(03)00413-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. La Rovere MT,
      2. Pinna GD,
      3. Maestri R, et al
      . The 6-minute walking test and all-cause mortality in patients undergoing a post-cardiac surgery rehabilitation program. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2015;22:20–6. doi:10.1177/2047487313502405
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. ↵
      1. Chen Y-C,
      2. Chen K-C,
      3. Lu L-H, et al
      . Validating the 6-minute walk test as an indicator of recovery in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a prospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e12925. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000012925
    46. ↵
      1. Cacciatore F,
      2. Abete P,
      3. Mazzella F, et al
      . Six-minute walking test but not ejection fraction predicts mortality in elderly patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation following coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2012;19:1401–9. doi:10.1177/1741826711422991
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    47. ↵
      1. Radi B,
      2. Ambari AM,
      3. Dwiputra B, et al
      . Determinants and prediction equations of six-minute walk test distance immediately after cardiac surgery. Front Cardiovasc Med 2021;8:685673. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2021.685673
      OpenUrl
    48. ↵
      1. Kanejima Y,
      2. Shimogai T,
      3. Kitamura M, et al
      . Effect of early mobilization on physical function in patients after cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:7091. doi:10.3390/ijerph17197091
    49. ↵
      1. Mendes RG,
      2. Pantoni CBF,
      3. Simões RP, et al
      . In-hospital mobilization after cardiac surgery: investigation of a dose-effect of once- and twice-daily exercise on cardiac autonomic modulation. Cardiorespir Physiother Crit Care Rehabil 2021;1:e42060. doi:10.4322/2675-9977.cpcr.42060
    50. ↵
      1. Chen B,
      2. You X,
      3. Lin Y, et al
      . A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of early mobilization therapy in patients after cardiac surgery: a protocol for systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99:e18843. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000018843
    51. ↵
      1. Ramesh C,
      2. Nayak BS,
      3. Pai VB, et al
      . Effect of preoperative education on postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Perianesth Nurs 2017;32:518–29. doi:10.1016/j.jopan.2016.11.011
      OpenUrl
    52. ↵
      1. Ertürk EB,
      2. Ünlü H
      . Effects of pre-operative individualized education on anxiety and pain severity in patients following open-heart surgery. Int J Health Sci (Qassim) 2018;12:26–34.
      OpenUrl
    53. ↵
      1. Jayakumar S,
      2. Borrelli M,
      3. Milan Z, et al
      . Optimising pain management protocols following cardiac surgery: a protocol for a national quality improvement study. Int J Surg Protoc 2019;14:1–8. doi:10.1016/j.isjp.2018.12.002
      OpenUrlPubMed
    54. ↵
      1. Krebs EE,
      2. Carey TS,
      3. Weinberger M
      . Accuracy of the pain numeric rating scale as a screening test in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22:1453–8. doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0321-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    55. ↵
      1. Sommers J,
      2. Engelbert RH,
      3. Dettling-Ihnenfeldt D, et al
      . Physiotherapy in the intensive care unit: an evidence-based, expert driven, practical statement and rehabilitation recommendations. Clin Rehabil 2015;29:1051–63. doi:10.1177/0269215514567156
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    56. ↵
      1. Hodgson CL,
      2. Stiller K,
      3. Needham DM, et al
      . Expert consensus and recommendations on safety criteria for active mobilization of mechanically ventilated critically ill adults. Crit Care 2014;18:658. doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0658-y
    57. ↵
      1. Hodgson CL,
      2. Bailey M,
      3. Bellomo R, et al
      . A binational multicenter pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial of early goal-directed mobilization in the ICU. Crit Care Med 2016;44:1145–52. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001643
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    58. ↵
      1. Koutras MV,
      2. Bersimis S,
      3. Maravelakis PE
      . Statistical process control using Shewhart control charts with supplementary runs rules. Methodol Comput Appl Probab 2007;9:207–24. doi:10.1007/s11009-007-9016-8
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    59. ↵
      1. Kashif M,
      2. Hamid M,
      3. Raza A
      . Influence of preoperative anxiety level on postoperative pain after cardiac surgery. Cureus 2022;14:e22170. doi:10.7759/cureus.22170
    60. ↵
      1. Yau DKW,
      2. Underwood MJ,
      3. Joynt GM, et al
      . Effect of preparative rehabilitation on recovery after cardiac surgery: a systematic review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2021;64. doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2020.03.014
    61. ↵
      1. Makkar N,
      2. Jain K,
      3. Siddharth V, et al
      . Patient involvement in decision-making: an important parameter for better patient experience-an observational study (STROBE compliant). J Patient Exp 2019;6:231–7. doi:10.1177/2374373518790043
      OpenUrl
    62. ↵
      1. Buljac-Samardzic M,
      2. Clark MA,
      3. van Exel NJA, et al
      . Patients as team members: factors affecting involvement in treatment decisions from the perspective of patients with a chronic condition. Health Expect 2022;25:138–48. doi:10.1111/hex.13358
      OpenUrl
    63. ↵
      1. Danz MS,
      2. Hempel S,
      3. Lim Y-W, et al
      . Incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22:931–9. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001722
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    64. ↵
      1. Vuk T
      . Quality indicators: a tool for quality monitoring and improvement. ISBT Sci Ser 2012;7:24–8. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2824.2012.01584.x
      OpenUrl
    65. ↵
      1. Linke CA,
      2. Chapman LB,
      3. Berger LJ, et al
      . Early mobilization in the ICU: a collaborative, integrated approach. Crit Care Explor 2020;2:e0090. doi:10.1097/CCE.0000000000000090
    66. ↵
      1. Opasich C,
      2. De S,
      3. Pinna GD, et al
      . Distance walked in the 6-minute test soon after cardiac surgery: toward an efficient use in the individual patient. Chest 2004;126:1796–801. doi:10.1378/chest.126.6.1796
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Contributors PJ : Conceptualisation (lead), methodology (lead); development of the mobility activity program, supervision; writing—original draft (supporting), guarantor; PJS: Writing—original draft (lead); development of the mobility activity program, conceptualisation (supporting); methodology (supporting); PG: Project administration (lead); review and editing; formal analysis (supporting); MM: Supervision of primary outcome assessment, development of the mobility activity program; AA: Project administration (supporting), resources; SAM and HHS: Formulating change ideas at physician level; ALS, JU and GM: Implementing change ideas and data curation; ROAG and PT: Assessing the primary outcome and implementing change ideas; RS: Formal analysis (lead).

    • Funding The overall quality improvement effort was funded by the Hamad Medical Corporation, our parent organisation.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.