To evaluate the impact of a toolkit of psychometrically robust measurement tools, the Greater Manchester Assessment for Stroke Rehabilitation (G-MASTER) toolkit, on the use of measurement tools during stroke rehabilitation
Design:
Mixed methods cohort design using non-participant observation of multi-disciplinary team meetings and semi-structured interviews with members of the team over three months before and three months after implementation of the assessment toolkit. Development and implementation of the toolkit are also described.
Setting:
Ten in-patient stroke services in a large UK city.
Subjects:
Members of the participating multi-disciplinary stroke teams.
Results:
Before implementation standardised measures were seldom used in team meetings. After implementation, use of all measurement tools significantly increased (36% to 81% of occasions, P<0.000). Staff were generally positive about the toolkit and felt it enabled more accurate problem identification, effective progress monitoring, timely decision-making, communication and promoted inter-team relationships.
Conclusions:
A toolkit of standardised measurement tools can be feasibly and acceptably implemented into stroke rehabilitation. It increases the use of measurement tools by the multi-disciplinary team and improves the processes and quality of care.
Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. National Clinical Guideline for stroke, 4th Ed. London: Royal College of Physicians, 2012.
2.
BurtonLTysonSFMcGovernA. Staff perceptions of using outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation. Disab & Rehab2013; 35: 828–834.
3.
van PeppenRMaissanFvan GenderenF. Outcome measures in physiotherapy for patients with stroke: a survey into self-reported use, and barriers to and facilitators for use. Physioth Res Int2008; 13: 255–270.
4.
FungCHHaysRD. Prospects and challenges in using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Qual Life Res2008; 17: 1297–1302.
5.
GreenhalghJ. The applications of Patient Reported Outcomes in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why?Qual Life Res2009; 18: 115.
6.
ValderasJMKotzevaAEspallarguesM. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: A systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res2008; 17: 179–193.
7.
MarshallSHaywoodKLFitzpatrickR. Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: A structured review. J Eval Clin Pract2006; 12: 559–568.
8.
GilbodySMWhittyPMGrimshawJM. Improving the detection and management of depression in primary care. Qual Saf Health Care2003; 12: 149–155.
9.
GreenhalghJMeadowsK. The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: A literature review. J Eval Clin Pract1999; 5: 401–416.
10.
JellesFvan BennekomCAMLankhorstGJ. Introducing an innovative method in team conferences. Disabil Rehabil1996; 18: 374–379.
11.
JellesFvan BennekomCAMLankhorstGJ. The interdisciplinary team conference in rehabilitation medicine. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1995; 74: 464–465.
12.
JellesFvan BennekomCAMLankhorstGJ. Instruments to structure interdisciplinary team conferences in rehabilitation medicine: the added value of the Rehabilitation Activities Profile. J Rehabil Sci1995; 8: 51–57.
13.
VerhoefJToussaintPJZwetsloot-SchonkJHM. 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. Arthrit & Rheum2007; 57: 240–248.
14.
VerhoefJToussaintPJPutterH. The impact of the implementation of a rehabilitation tool on the contents of the communication during multidisciplinary team conferences in rheumatology. Int J Med Info2007; 76: 856–863.
15.
VerhoefJToussaintPJPutterH. The impact of introducing an ICF-bas10–13ed rehabilitation tool on staff satisfaction with multidisciplinary team care in rheumatology: an exploratory study. Clin Rehabil2008; 22: 23–37.
16.
WressleELindstrandJNeherM. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as an outcome measure and team tool in a day treatment programme. Disab & Rehabil2003; 25: 497–506.
17.
TysonSBurtonLMcGovernA. The impact of an assessment toolkit on use of objective measurement tools in stroke rehabilitation. (Submitted) Clin Rehab.
18.
BurtonLTysonSF. Screening for mood disorders after stroke: A systematic review of psychometric properties and clinical utility. Psychol Med. Epub ahead of print 28 February 2014. DOI:10.1017/S0033291714000336.
19.
BurtonLTysonSF. Screening for cognitive impairment after stroke: A systematic review of psychometric properties and clinical utility. J Rehab Med2014. DOI:10.2340/16501977-1930.
20.
TysonSFBurtonLMcGovernA. Multi-disciplinary team meetings in stroke rehabilitation: An observation study. Clin Rehab2014; 28(12): 1237–1247.
21.
TysonSFBurtonLJMcGovernA. The effect of structured model for stroke multi-disciplinary team meetings on service delivery and patient outcomes. (Submitted) Clin Rehab.
22.
World Health Organisation. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2001.
23.
TysonSWatsonAMossS. Development of a framework for the evidence-based choice of outcome measures in neurological physiotherapy. Disabil Rehabil. 2008; 30: 142–149.
24.
GlässelACoenenMKolleritsB. Validation of the extended ICF core set for stroke from the patient perspective using focus groups. Disabil Rehabil2012; 34: 157–166.
CollinCWadeDTDaviesS. The Barthel ADL Index: A reliability study. Disab & Rehabil1998; 10: 61–63.
27.
LincolnNBSutcliffeLMUnsworthG. Validation of the Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire (SADQ) for use with patients in hospital. Clin Neuropsych Assess2000; 1: 88–96.
28.
SpitzerRLKroenkeKWilliamsJBW. A brief measure for assessing generalised anxiety disorder (GAD-7). Arch Intern Med2006; 166: 1092–1097.
29.
SpitzerRKroenkeKWilliamsJ. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: The PHQ primary care study. JAMA1999; 282; 1737–1744.
30.
Turner-StokesLKalmusMHiraniD. (2005). The Depression Intensity Scale Circles (DISCs): a first evaluation of a simple assessment tool for depression in context of brain injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psych2005; 76: 1273–1278.
Flamand-RozeCFalissardBRozeE. Validation of a new language screening tool for patients with acute stroke: The Language Screening Test (LAST). Stroke2011; 42: 1224–1229.
EliaM (2003) Screening for malnutrition: A multidisciplinary responsibility. Development and use of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (‘MUST’) for adults. Redditch: BAPEN.
NakayamaDKBusheyTNHubbardI. Using a Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycle to Introduce a New OR Service Line. ORN Journal2010; 92: 335–343.
38.
BoschMvan der WeydenTWensingMG. Tailoring quality improvement interventions to identified barriers: a multiple case analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007; 13: 161–168.
39.
GrolRGrimshawJM. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet2003; 362: 1225–1230.
40.
BakerRCamosso-StefinovicJGilliesC. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2010: 3: CD005470.
41.
GrimshawJMThomasREMacLennanG. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technology Assessment, 2004; 8:6: 1–72.
42.
ChailletNDubeEDugasM. Evidence-based strategies for implementing guidelines in obstetrics. Obs & Gynec2006; 108: 1234–1245.
