3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      IMPLEMENTATION OF EVIDENCE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF UPPER EXTREMITY IN STROKE REHABILITATION: FROM EVIDENCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

      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

          Objective

          There is an evidence–practice gap in assessment of the upper extremities during acute and subacute stroke rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to target this gap by describing and evaluating the implementation of, and adherence to, an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for occupational therapists and physiotherapists.

          Methods

          The upper extremity assessment implementation process at Sahlgrenska University Hospital comprised 5 stages: mapping clinical practice, identifying evidence-based outcome measures, development of a guideline, implementation, and evaluation. A systematic theoretical framework was used to guide and facilitate the implementation process. A survey, answered by 44 clinicians (23 physiotherapists and 21 occupational therapists), was used for evaluation.

          Results

          The guideline includes 6 primary standardized assessments (Shoulder Abduction, Finger Extension (SAFE), 2 items of the Actions Research Arm Test (ARAT-2), Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), Box and Block Test (BBT), 9-Hole Peg Test (9HPT), and grip strength (Jamar hand dynamometer)) performed at specified time-points post-stroke. More than 80% (35 to 42) clinicians reported reported being content with the guideline and the implementation process. Approximately 60–90% of the clinicians reported good adherence to specific assessments, and approximately 50% reported good adherence to the agreed time-points. Comprehensive scales were more difficult to implement compared with the shorter screening scales. High levels of work rotation among staff, and the need to prioritize other assessments during the first week after stroke, hindered to implementation.

          Conclusion

          The robustness of evidence, adequate support and receptive context facilitated the implementation process. The guideline enables a more structured, knowledge-based and consistent assessment, and thereby supports clinical decision-making and patient involvement.

          LAY ABSTRACT

          Currently available clinical practice guidelines do not specify which outcome measures should be used at which time-points for people after stroke. This study describes the implementation process and evaluation of a clinical practice guideline developed for the assessment of upper extremity function after stroke. The guideline is based on recent research evidence and defines the assessments, and the time-points at which the assessments should be performed. An evaluation survey showed that clinicians valued the clear structure of the guideline and found it useful for prognosis and treatment planning. Robust evidence, and active involvement of clinicians and leaders, were important elements of implementation. The guideline will potentially improve the quality of rehabilitation through increased knowledge of prognosis and treatment effects, based on the assessment of arm function in people with stroke, thereby enabling a more evidence-based, consistent, and individually tailored rehabilitation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

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

          AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care.

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

            Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map?

            There is confusion and misunderstanding about the concepts of knowledge translation, knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, research utilization, implementation, diffusion, and dissemination. We review the terms and definitions used to describe the concept of moving knowledge into action. We also offer a conceptual framework for thinking about the process and integrate the roles of knowledge creation and knowledge application. The implications of knowledge translation for continuing education in the health professions include the need to base continuing education on the best available knowledge, the use of educational and other transfer strategies that are known to be effective, and the value of learning about planned-action theories to be better able to understand and influence change in practice settings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice

              Background The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services, or PARIHS framework, was first published in 1998. Since this time, work has been ongoing to further develop, refine and test it. Widely used as an organising or conceptual framework to help both explain and predict why the implementation of evidence into practice is or is not successful, PARIHS was one of the first frameworks to make explicit the multi-dimensional and complex nature of implementation as well as highlighting the central importance of context. Several critiques of the framework have also pointed out its limitations and suggested areas for improvement. Discussion Building on the published critiques and a number of empirical studies, this paper introduces a revised version of the framework, called the integrated or i-PARIHS framework. The theoretical antecedents of the framework are described as well as outlining the revised and new elements, notably, the revision of how evidence is described; how the individual and teams are incorporated; and how context is further delineated. We describe how the framework can be operationalised and draw on case study data to demonstrate the preliminary testing of the face and content validity of the revised framework. Summary This paper is presented for deliberation and discussion within the implementation science community. Responding to a series of critiques and helpful feedback on the utility of the original PARIHS framework, we seek feedback on the proposed improvements to the framework. We believe that the i-PARIHS framework creates a more integrated approach to understand the theoretical complexity from which implementation science draws its propositions and working hypotheses; that the new framework is more coherent and comprehensive and at the same time maintains it intuitive appeal; and that the models of facilitation described enable its more effective operationalisation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0398-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Rehabil Med
                JRM
                Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
                Foundation for Rehabilitation Information
                1650-1977
                1651-2081
                20 January 2021
                2021
                : 53
                : 1
                : 2750
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland Gothenburg
                [2 ]Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Clinical Neuroscience, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden
                Author notes
                Correspondence address: Margit Alt Murphy, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Clinical Neuroscience, Rehabilitation Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. E-mail: margit.alt-murphy@ 123456neuro.gu.se
                Article
                JRM-53-1-2750
                10.2340/16501977-2790
                8772359
                33470413
                f5580c98-6a32-44f7-9f3d-93e1eccd2e2b
                © 2021 Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 05 January 2021
                Categories
                Original Report

                clinical practice guideline,evidence-based practice,implementation science,stroke,rehabilitation,knowledge translation,upper extremity,assessment

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content47

                Cited by5

                Most referenced authors468