To support implementation of the Inter-professional Guideline for Vocational Evaluation Following Traumatic Brain Injury we compared current practices to best practices as outlined in the guideline.
Method
We recruited health/vocational professionals who do vocational evaluation of traumatic brain injury survivors to participate in qualitative semi-structured interviews. We also conducted a document review of internal clinical and provincial workers’ compensation insurance documents. All data were analyzed using directed content analysis.
Results
Thirteen individuals participated and three types of documents were reviewed. Practices that were found to be frequently aligned with the Inter-professional Guideline for Vocational Evaluation Following Traumatic Brain Injury included: (a) identification of evaluation purpose; (b) obtaining informed consent; (c) gathering background information; (d) assessing persistent symptoms and abilities; (e) analyzing and synthesizing results; and (f) developing return to work recommendations. Practices partially aligned included: (a) incorporating the worker’s perspectives into the evaluation; (b) observing work behaviors in naturalistic settings (c) assessing available supports; and (d) assessing occupational/job demands in context. Practices that did not align with the guideline included: (a) evaluation of the workplace environment and workplace supports; (b) accommodation potential; and (c) assessment of workplace safety.
Conclusion
To support implementation of the guideline and enhance successful vocational outcomes, additional attention and resources should be dedicated to evaluating workplace-based factors and assessing workplace-based risks.
BakerGMacIntosh-MurrayAPorcellatoC (2008) Learning from high performing systems: Quality by design. In: BakerGMacIntosh-MurrayAPorcellatoC (eds) High Performing Healthcare Systems: Delivering Quality by Design, Toronto, ON: Longwoods Publishing, pp. 11–26.
BayleyMTHurdowarARichardsCL (2012) Barriers to implementation of stroke rehabilitation evidence: Findings from a multi-site pilot project. Disability and Rehabilitation34(19): 1633–1638.
4.
CabanaMDRandCSPoweNR (1999) Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. Journal of the American Medical Association: Internal Medicine282(15): 1458–1465.
CarlsenBGlentonCPopeC (2007) Thou shalt versus thou shalt not: A meta-synthesis of GPs’ attitudes to clinical practice guidelines. British Journal of General Practice57(545): 971–978.
7.
DopsonSFitzGeraldLFerlieE (2002) No magic target! Changing clinical practice to become more evidence based. Health Care Management Review27(3): 35–47.
8.
EcclesMGrimshawJ (2004) Selecting, presenting and delivering clinical practice guidelines: Are they the magic bullet?Medical Journal of Australia180: S52–S54.
9.
FadylJKMcPhersonKM (2009) Approaches to vocational rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury: A review of the evidence. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation24(3): 195–212.
10.
FerlieEFitzgeraldLWoodM (2005) The nonspread of innovations: The mediating role of professionals. Academy of Management Journal48(1): 117–134.
11.
FranckeASmitMde VeerA (2008) Factors influencing implementation of clinical guidelines for health care professionals: A systematic meta review. Implementation Science8(38): 1–11.
12.
GrahamIDLoganJHarrisonMB (2006) Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map?The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions26(1): 13–24.
13.
GuestGBunceAJohnsonL (2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods18(1): 59–82.
14.
HakkennesSDoddK (2008) Guideline implementation in allied health professions: A systematic review of the literature. Quality and Safety in Health Care17(4): 296–300.
15.
HsiehHFShannonSE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research15(9): 1277–1288.
16.
InnesEStrakerL (1998) A clinician’s guide to work-related assessments: 1 – Purposes and problems. Work11(2): 183–189.
17.
IversNJamtvedtGFlottorpS (2012) Audit and feedback: Effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews6: CD000259.
18.
LysaghtRWrightJ (2005) Professional strategies in work-related practice: Exploration of occupational and physical therapy roles and approaches. American Journal of Occupational Therapy59(2): 209–217.
19.
MaysNPopeC (2000) Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal320(7226): 50–52.
20.
Muhr T (2010) ATLAS.ti [computer sofware]. Berlin, 6.2.
PaldaVDavisDGoldmanJ (2007) A guide to the Canadian Medical Association Handbook on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Canadian Medical Association Journal177(10): 1221–1226.
23.
ParenteRStapletonM (1996) Vocational evaluation, training, and job placement after traumatic brain injury: Problems and solutions. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation7(3): 181–191.
24.
PonsfordJLDowningMGOlverJ (2014) Longitudinal follow-up of patients with traumatic brain injury: Outcome at two, five, and ten years post-injury. Journal of Neurotrauma31(1): 64–77.
25.
SaltychevMEskolaMTenovuoO (2013) Return to work after traumatic brain injury: Systematic review. Brain Injury27(13–14): 1516–1527.
26.
SolbergLIBrekkeMLFazioCJ (2000) Lessons from experienced guideline implementers: Attend to many factors and use multiple strategies. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement26(4): 171–188.
27.
Stergiou-KitaM (2010) Implementing clinical practice guidelines in occupational therapy practice: Recommendations from the research evidence. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal57(2): 76–87.
28.
Stergiou-KitaMDawsonDRappoltS (2011) An integrated review of the processes and factors relevant to vocational evaluation following traumatic brain injury. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation21(3): 374–394.
29.
Stergiou-KitaMDawsonDRappoltS (2012a) Inter-professional clinical practice guideline for vocational evaluation following traumatic brain injury: A systematic and evidence-based approach. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation22(2): 166–181.
30.
Stergiou-KitaMRappoltSDawsonD (2012b) Towards developing a guideline for vocational evaluation following traumatic brain injury: The qualitative synthesis of clients’ perspectives. Disability and Rehabilitation34(3): 179–188.
31.
Stergiou-KitaMRappoltSKirshB (2009) Evaluating work readiness following acquired brain injury: Building a shared understanding. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy76(4): 276–284.
32.
Stergiou-KitaMYantziAWanJ (2010) The personal and workplace factors relevant to work readiness evaluation following acquired brain injury: Occupational therapists’ perceptions. Brain Injury24(7–8): 948–958.
33.
van VelzenJvan BennekomCEdelaarM (2009) How many people return to work after acquired brain injury? A systematic review. Brain Injury23(6): 473–488.
