Objective: To explore the way in which standardized measurement tools are used in day-to-day clinical practice.
Design: Non-participant observation and semi-structured interviews.
Setting: Hospital-based adult neurorehabilition unit.
Participants: The multidisciplinary team delivering rehabilitation in the unit.
Results: The multidisciplinary team used the measurement tools internally to establish the presence and severity of patients’ impairments and activity limitations; predict recovery and discharge destination; inform treatment planning and monitor progress. They were used externally to demonstrate service effectiveness; communicate with patients, families and external agencies; enable other providers to plan continuing care and resource needs, and inform audit and service development.
Conclusion: When used in everyday clinical practice by a multidisciplinary neurorehabilitation team, standardized measures were used to support and inform, rather than replace, clinical decision-making.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Darzi Report .High quality care for all. NHS next stage review . Final report, 2008. Accessed February 2009, from www.dh.gov.uk/en/publicationsandstatistics/publications/publicationspolicyandguidance/DH_085825
2.
Appleby J., Devlin N.Measuring success in the NHS. London, King’s Fund, 2004.
3.
Department of Health.Framing the contribution of allied health professionals Delivering high-quality healthcare . London, Department of Health, 2008.
4.
Rudd A., Pearson M., Georgiou A.Measuring clinical outcome in stroke (acute care). London , Clinical Effectiveness and Evaluation Unit, Royal College of Physicians, 2000.
5.
Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party.National clinical guidelines for stroke, third edition. London, Royal College of Physicians, 2008.
6.
Chartered Society of Physiotherapy.Core standards of physiotherapy practice. London, Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, 2000.
7.
Department of Health.The National Service Framework for long term conditions. London, Department of Health, 2005.
8.
Royal College of Physicians.National sentinel stroke audit report 2005. Prepared on behalf of the Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. London, Royal College of Physicians, 2006.
9.
Turner-Stokes L., Turner-Stokes T.The use of standardized outcome measures in rehabilitation centres in the UK. Clin Rehabil1997; 11: 306-13.
10.
Skinner A., Turner-Stokes L.The use of standardized outcome measures in rehabilitation centres in the UK. Clin Rehabil2006; 20: 609-15.
11.
Wade D., Collin C.The Barthel ADL Index: a standard measure of physical disability?Int Disabil Stud1988; 10: 64-67.
12.
Collin C., Wade DT, Davis S., Horne V.The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud1988; 10: 61-63.
13.
Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, Zielezny M., Tashman JSA uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation.
14.
In Furher JM. ed. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore, Brooks , 1987.
15.
Beckerman H. , Roelofsen EE, Knol DL, Lankhorst GJThe value of the Rehabilitation Activities Profile as a quality sub-system in rehabilitation medicine. Disabil Rehabil2004; 26: 387-400.
16.
Verhoef J., Toussaint PJ, Zwetsloot-Schonk JH, Breedveld FC, Putter H., Vlieland Tpmv.Effectiveness of the introduction of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based rehabilitation tool in multidisciplinary team care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum2007; 57: 240-48.
17.
Wressle E., Lindstrand J., Neher M., Marcusson J., Henriksson C.The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as an outcome measure and team tool in a day treatment programme. Disabil Rehabil2003; 25: 497-506.
18.
Greenhalgh J., Long AF, Flynn R.The use of patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice. Soc Sci Med2005; 60: 833-43.
19.
Greenhalgh J., Flynn R., Long AF, Tyson SFTacit and encoded knowledge in the use of standardised outcome measures in multidisciplinary team decision-making: a case-study in neurorehabilitation. Soc Sci Med2008; 67: 183-94.
20.
Greenhalgh J., Long AF, Flynn R., Tyson SF‘It’s hard to tell.’ The challenges of scoring patients on standardised outcome measures by multidisciplinary teams: a case study of neurorehabilitation. BMC Health Serv Res2008; 8: 217.
21.
Strauss A., Corbin J.Basics of qualitative research, second edition. London , Sage, 1998.
22.
Hsieh HF, Shannon S.Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res2005; 15: 1277-88.
23.
Turner-Stokes L., Tonge P., Nyein K., Hunter M., Nielson S., Robinson I.The Northwick Park Dependency Score (NPDS): a measure of nursing dependency in rehabilitation . Clin Rehabil1998; 12: 304-18.
24.
Geddes JM, Tennant A., Chamberlain MAThe Leeds Assessment Scale of Handicap: its operationalisation, reliability, validity and responsiveness in in-patient rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil2000; 22: 529-38.
