Critical Care Outcomes
Conditions
Interventions
The sample consisted of 40 patients divided into two groups, virtual reality group (GRV) N: 20, and the conventional early mobilization group (GMPC) N: 20.
The virtual reality group (GRV): 20 subjects
N04.761.559.590.399.250
Sponsors
Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa
Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa
Eligibility
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Patients who are hospitalized in the adult ICUs of the HU-UEPG, over 18 years of age and who have not yet been in a sitting position in bed during hospitalization at the unit, will be included in the research. All study participants must accept and sign the free and informed consent form (FICF) and if they are not able, this knowledge must be given by the responsible family member.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Restless patients, with visual deficits, hemodynamically unstable, with pressure ulcers in the sacral region above grade II classified by the NPUAP/EPUAP system, or who for any reason do not adapt to virtual reality glasses will be excluded.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Expected outcome 1: It is expected to find that the interactivity provided by the use of virtual reality (VR) glasses will result in a better application of the technique by verifying the bedside settling time and, consequently, a longer bedside settling time.;Outcome found 1: A longer length of stay was observed in patients who were seated at bedside with VR glasses when compared to patients who were seated at bedside without using VR glasses. | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Expected outcome 2: It is expected that the virtual reality group (GRV) that performed the protocol with the VR glasses report a lower level of discomfort in the post-intervention period when compared to the conventional early mobilization group (GMPC) that received the protocol without the VR glasses, and also that the level of pain is lower before the intervention when compared to the time after the intervention, this analysis was performed using the visual analogue pain scale (EVN) and Observation of Pain in Critical Care (CPOT) instrument .;Outcome found 2: It was observed that there was no difference in pain analysis between GRV and GMPC. Likewise, there was no difference between the level of pain before and after the protocol in both groups.;Expected outcome 3: It is expected that the mobility level assessed by the ICU Functional Status Scale (FSS-ICU) analyzed in patients in the virtual reality group (GRV) is higher when compared to the conventional early mobilization group (GMPC) at the moment post intervention. Likewise, it is expected that the level of mobility after the intervention is higher when compared to the pre-intervention.;Outcome found 3: A higher level of mobility was observed after the intervention in both groups, but when compared between groups there were no significant differences | — |
Countries
Brazil
Contacts
Public ContactUniversidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa - UEPG
Outcome results
None listed