Promoting the use of outcome measures by an educational programme for physiotherapists in stroke rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Objective: To determine the influence of tutor expertise on the uptake of a physiotherapists’ educational programme intended to promote the use of outcome measures in the management of patients with stroke.

Design: Pilot randomized controlled trial.

Methods: Thirty physiotherapists involved in stroke management were randomized into two groups and participated in five tutor-guided educational sessions (the Physiotherapists’ Educational Programme on Clinimetrics in Stroke, PEPCiS). Groups differed from each other with respect to tutors: one experienced and one inexperienced in stroke care. Primary outcome was ‘actual use’ (the frequencies of data of seven recommended outcome measures in the patient records of the participating physiotherapists).

Results: The actual use of instruments shifted from a median of 3 to 6 in the expert tutor group and from 3 to 4 in the non-expert tutor group (P = 0.07). Physiotherapists educated by the expert tutor used a broader variety of instruments and appreciated the educational programme, their own knowledge gain and all three scales of tutor style aspects significantly more than their colleagues of the non-expert tutor group (all P<0.05). Univariate analysis on the entire set of data revealed eight factors, including tutors’ performance, that were associated with a change score of the use of two or more outcome measures by individual physiotherapists after the educational programme.

Conclusion: In this pilot trial it was not proven that tutor expertise in stroke care influences the actual use of outcome measures, but it warrants a future study with sufficient power to investigate the influence of the tutor.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Australian Physiotherapy Association. APA Position Statement - Clinical justification and outcome measures. Accessed from https://apa.advsol.com.au/staticcontent/staticpages/position_statements/public/ClinicalJustification&Outcome%20Measures.pdf 2003.

Abrams D. , Davidson M. , Harrick J. , Harcourt P. , Zylinski M. , Clancy J. Monitoring the change: current trends in outcome measure usage in physiotherapy . Man Ther 2006; 11: 46-53.

Akinpelu AO , Eluchie NC Familiarity with, knowledge, and utilization of standardized outcome measures among physiotherapists in Nigeria. Physiother Theory Pract 2006; 22: 61-72.

Chesson R. , Macleod M. , Massie S. Outcome measures used in therapy departments in Scotland. Physiotherapy 1996; 82: 673-79.

Lennon S. Physiotherapy practice in stroke rehabilitation: a survey. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 455-61.

Maher C. , Williams M. Factors influencing the use of outcome measures in physiotherapy management of lung transplant patients in Australia and New Zealand. Physiother Theory Pract 2005; 21: 201-17.

Mayo N. , Cole B. , Dowler J. , Gowland C. , Finch E. Use of outcome measures in physiotherapy: survey of current practice . Can J Rehabil 1994; 7: 81-82.

Oostendorp RAB , Pluimers DJ , Nijhuis-van , der Sanden MWG , Wensing M. Physiotherapy patient documentation: the Achilles heel of evidence-based practice? [In Dutch: Fysiotherapeutische verslaglegging: de Achilleshiel voor Evidence-based Practice (EBP)?]. Ned Tijdschr v Fysioth 2006 ; 116: 56-61.

Van Peppen RPS , Maissan JF , Van Genderen FR , Van Dolder R. , Van Meeteren NLU Outcome measures in physiotherapy management of patients with stroke: a survey into self-reported use, and barriers to and facilitators for use. Physiother Res Int 2008; 13: 255-70.

10.

Jette DU , Bacon K. , Batty C. et al. Evidence-based practice: beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of physical therapists. Phys Ther 2003; 83: 786-805.

11.

Parker-Taillon D. CPA initiatives put the spotlight on evidence-based practice in physiotherapy. Physiother Can 2002; 24: 12-15.

12.

Van Peppen RPS , Hendriks HJM , Van Meeteren NLU , Helders PJM , Kwakkel G. The development of a clinical practice stroke guideline for physiotherapists in The Netherlands: A systematic review of available evidence. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29: 767-83.

13.

Turner-Stokes L. , Turner-Stokes T. The use of standardized outcome measures in rehabilitation centres in the UK. Clin Rehabil 1997; 11: 306-13.

14.

Pollock AS , Legg L. , Langhorne P. , Sellars C. Barriers to achieving evidence-based stroke rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil 2000; 14: 611-17.

15.

Hammond R. Evaluation of physiotherapy by measuring outcome. Physiotherapy 2000; 86: 170-72.

16.

Glasziou P. , Irwig L. , Mant D. Monitoring in chronic disease: a rational approach. BMJ 2005; 330: 644-48.

17.

Lomas J. Teaching old (and not so old) does new tricks: effective ways to implement research findings. In Dunn EV , Norton PG , Steward M , Tudiver F , Bass MJ. eds. Disseminating research/ changing practice. London, Sage, 1993.

18.

Powell CV How to implement change in clinical practice. Paediatr Respir Rev 2003; 4: 340-46.

19.

Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol 50. 179-211.

20.

Grol R. , Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 2003; 362: 1225-30.

21.

Dolmans DH , Gijselaers WH , Moust JH , de Grave WS , Wolfhagen IH , van der Vleuten CP Trends in research on the tutor in problem-based learning: conclusions and implications for educational practice and research. Med Teach 2002; 24: 173-80.

22.

Schmidt HG , van der Arend A. , Moust JH , Kokx I. , Boon L. Influence of tutors’ subject-matter expertise on student effort and sachievement in problem-based learning. Acad Med 1993; 68: 784-91.

23.

Portney LG , Watkins MP Foundations of clinical research applications to practice, second edition . New Jersey, Prentice-Hall , 2000.

24.

Francis JJ , Eccles MP , Johnston M. et al. Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour, a manual for health services researchers. Newcastle upon Tyne: Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle, 2004.

25.

Eccles M. , Grimshaw J. , Walker A. , Johnston M. , Pitts N. Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 107-12.

26.

Groves M. , Rego P. , O’Rourke P. Tutoring in problem-based learning medical curricula: the influence of tutor background and style on effectiveness. BMC Med Educ 2005; 5: 20.

27.

Rogers EM Diffusion of innovations. New York, The Free Press, 1983.

28.

Beurskens AJ , de Vet HC , Kant I. [Roaming through the methodology. VIII. Pilot studies: sense and nonsense]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1998; 142: 2142-45.

29.

Lancaster GA , Dodd S. , Williamson PR Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2004; 10: 307-12.

30.

Rothstein JM , Echternach JL , Riddle DL The Hypothesis-Oriented Algorithm for Clinicians II (HOAC II): a guide for patient management. Phys Ther 2003; 83: 455-70.

31.

Vreeman DJ , Taggard SL , Rhine MD , Worrell TW Evidence for electronic health record systems in physical therapy . Phys Ther 2006; 86: 434-46.

32.

Haynes RB , Devereaux PJ , Guyatt GH Clinical expertise in the era of evidence-based medicine and patient choice . Vox Sang 2002; 83(suppl 1): 383-86.

33.

Steiner WA , Ryser L. , Huber E. , Uebelhart D. , Aeschlimann A. , Stucki G. Use of the ICF model as a clinical problem-solving tool in physical therapy and rehabilitation medicine. Phys Ther 2002 ; 82: 1098-107.

34.

World Health Organization. ICF-introduction. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: WHO, 2001. http://www.who.int/classification/icf/intros/ICF-Eng-Intro.pdf

35.

Schenkman M. , Deutsch JE , Gill-Body KM An integrated framework for decision making in neurologic physical therapist practice. Phys Ther 2006; 86: 1681-702.