26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Current use of measurement instruments by physiotherapists working in Germany: a cross-sectional online survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The use of measurement instruments in physiotherapy has been recommended in clinical practice guidelines to improve evidence-based practice. The aims of the study were (a) to describe the current use of measurement instruments by physiotherapists working in Germany and (b) to investigate the facilitators and barriers to use measurement instruments.

          Methods

          This cross-sectional study used a nationwide online survey, which was accessible to all physiotherapists working in Germany.

          Results

          In total, 522 adult physiotherapists working in Germany completed the questionnaire. The mean age of the respondents was 38 years, 63% were female, and 53% had >10 years of work experience.

          Thirty-one percent of the respondents used measurement instruments in ≥80% of their patients, and 26% used measurement instruments in ≤20%. Measurement instruments were used for diagnostic and prognostic purposes by 69% and 22% of respondents, respectively. The three most frequently reported measurement instruments were “goniometer” ( n = 254), some kind of a “visual/numeric analogue scale” ( n = 139), and the “manual examination of muscle-strength” ( n = 54). Seven of the 13 most stated measurement instruments measure activities or participation.

          The most important facilitator was physiotherapists’ positive attitudes towards measurement instruments. Two out of three respondents reported having sufficient knowledge and skills to apply measurement instruments in clinical practice. The most pronounced barriers were insufficient additional financial compensations and requiring extra time to document test scores. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents could imagine using an electronic device for a user-friendly patient health record system in clinical practice.

          Conclusions

          The limited use of measurement instruments reported by physiotherapists working in Germany appears to be due to organisational issues, in combination with a lack of knowledge and skills needed to apply the measurement instruments, rather than due to individual or managerial reasons. To support the use of measurement instruments, sufficient time resources and adequate financial compensation are required. Educational approaches should focus on imparting patient-centred and patient-reported outcomes to quantify activities and participation. Electronic patient health record systems have potential to facilitate the application of standardised measurement instruments if the barriers identified in this survey are addressed properly.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3563-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Usefulness of the Berg Balance Scale in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review.

          In a recent study of 655 physical therapists working with a stroke population, the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) was identified as the most commonly used assessment tool across the continuum of stroke rehabilitation. Given the widespread popularity of the BBS, it is important to critically appraise the BBS for its use with a stroke population. The purposes of this study were to conduct a systematic review of the psychometric properties of the BBS specific to stroke and to identify strengths and weaknesses in its usefulness for stroke rehabilitation. Twenty-one studies examining the psychometric properties of the BBS with a stroke population were retrieved. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach alpha=.92-.98) as was interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs]=.95-.98), intrarater reliability (ICC=.97), and test-retest reliability (ICC=.98). Sixteen studies focused on validity and generally found excellent correlations with the Barthel Index, the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients, Functional Reach Test, the balance subscale of Fugl-Meyer Assessment, the Functional Independence Measure, the Rivermead Mobility Index (except for weight shift and step-up items), and gait speed. Berg Balance Scale scores predicted length of stay, discharge destination, motor ability at 180 days poststroke, and disability level at 90 days, but these scores were not predictive of falls. Eight studies focused on responsiveness; all reported moderate to excellent sensitivity. Three studies found floor or ceiling effects. The BBS is a psychometrically sound measure of balance impairment for use in poststroke assessment. Given the floor and ceiling effects, clinicians may want to use the BBS in conjunction with other balance measures.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Barriers to the acceptance of electronic medical records by physicians from systematic review to taxonomy and interventions

            Background The main objective of this research is to identify, categorize, and analyze barriers perceived by physicians to the adoption of Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) in order to provide implementers with beneficial intervention options. Methods A systematic literature review, based on research papers from 1998 to 2009, concerning barriers to the acceptance of EMRs by physicians was conducted. Four databases, "Science", "EBSCO", "PubMed" and "The Cochrane Library", were used in the literature search. Studies were included in the analysis if they reported on physicians' perceived barriers to implementing and using electronic medical records. Electronic medical records are defined as computerized medical information systems that collect, store and display patient information. Results The study includes twenty-two articles that have considered barriers to EMR as perceived by physicians. Eight main categories of barriers, including a total of 31 sub-categories, were identified. These eight categories are: A) Financial, B) Technical, C) Time, D) Psychological, E) Social, F) Legal, G) Organizational, and H) Change Process. All these categories are interrelated with each other. In particular, Categories G (Organizational) and H (Change Process) seem to be mediating factors on other barriers. By adopting a change management perspective, we develop some barrier-related interventions that could overcome the identified barriers. Conclusions Despite the positive effects of EMR usage in medical practices, the adoption rate of such systems is still low and meets resistance from physicians. This systematic review reveals that physicians may face a range of barriers when they approach EMR implementation. We conclude that the process of EMR implementation should be treated as a change project, and led by implementers or change managers, in medical practices. The quality of change management plays an important role in the success of EMR implementation. The barriers and suggested interventions highlighted in this study are intended to act as a reference for implementers of Electronic Medical Records. A careful diagnosis of the specific situation is required before relevant interventions can be determined.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Discriminative ability and predictive validity of the timed up and go test in identifying older people who fall: systematic review and meta-analysis.

              To investigate the discriminative ability and diagnostic accuracy of the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) as a clinical screening instrument for identifying older people at risk of falling. Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. People aged 60 and older living independently or in institutional settings. Studies were identified with searches of the PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL data bases. Retrospective and prospective cohort studies comparing times to complete any version of the TUG of fallers and non-fallers were included. Fifty-three studies with 12,832 participants met the inclusion criteria. The pooled mean difference between fallers and non-fallers depended on the functional status of the cohort investigated: 0.63 seconds (95% confidence (CI) = 0.14-1.12 seconds) for high-functioning to 3.59 seconds (95% CI = 2.18-4.99 seconds) for those in institutional settings. The majority of studies did not retain TUG scores in multivariate analysis. Derived cut-points varied greatly between studies, and with the exception of a few small studies, diagnostic accuracy was poor to moderate. The findings suggest that the TUG is not useful for discriminating fallers from non-fallers in healthy, high-functioning older people but is of more value in less-healthy, lower-functioning older people. Overall, the predictive ability and diagnostic accuracy of the TUG are at best moderate. No cut-point can be recommended. Quick, multifactorial fall risk screens should be considered to provide additional information for identifying older people at risk of falls. © 2013, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2013, The American Geriatrics Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +49-234-77727625 , tobias.braun@hs-gesundheit.de
                +49-0-234-77727-691 , alina.rieckmann@hs-gesundheit.de
                +49-0-234-77727-692 , franziska.weber@hs-gesundheit.de
                +49-0-234-77727 , christian.grueneberg@hs-gesundheit.de
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                23 October 2018
                23 October 2018
                2018
                : 18
                : 810
                Affiliations
                ISNI 0000 0004 0499 6327, GRID grid.466372.2, Hochschule für Gesundheit (University of Applied Sciences), Department of Applied Health Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, ; Gesundheitscampus 6-8, 44801 Bochum, Germany
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8851-2574
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8870-8457
                Article
                3563
                10.1186/s12913-018-3563-2
                6199696
                30352584
                78429b2f-e653-4302-bf9c-7c0c9f4a3ba9
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 10 May 2018
                : 24 September 2018
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Health & Social care
                measurement instrument,outcome measurement,physical therapy,physiotherapy,rehabilitation,evidence-based practice,cross-sectional survey

                Comments

                Comment on this article