Physiotherapists' compliance with ankle injury guidelines is different for patients with acute injuries and patients with functional instability: an observational study

Determinants of clinical practice guidelines' utilization for the management of musculoskeletal disorders: a scoping review

Context

Many clinical practice guidelines have been developed for the management of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). However, there is a gap between evidence-based knowledge and clinical practice, and reasons are poorly understood. Understanding why healthcare providers use clinical practice guidelines is essential to improve their implementation, dissemination, and adherence.

Aim

To identify determinants of clinical practice guidelines’ utilization by health care providers involved in the assessment and management of MSDs.

Method

A scoping review of the literature was conducted. Three databases were searched from inception to March 2021. Article identification, study design, methodological quality, type of healthcare providers, MSDs, barriers and facilitators associated with guidelines’ utilization were extracted from selected articles.

RESULTS: 8671 citations were retrieved, and 43 articles were selected. 51% of studies were from Europe, and most were quantitative studies (64%) following a cross-sectional design (88%). Almost 80% of articles dealt with low back pain guidelines, and the most studied healthcare providers were general practitioners or physiotherapists. Five main barriers to guideline utilization were expressed by providers: 1) disagreement between recommendations and patient expectations; 2) guidelines not specific to individual patients; 3) unfamiliarity with “non-specific” term, or with the bio psychosocial model of MSDs; 4) time consuming; and 5) heterogeneity in guideline methods. Four main facilitators to guideline utilization were cited: 1) clinician’s interest in evidence-based practice; 2) perception from clinicians that the guideline will improve triage, diagnosis and management; 3) time efficiency; and 4) standardized language.

Conclusion

Identifying modifiable determinants is the first step in developing implementation strategies to improve guideline utilization in clinical practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04204-w.

Pain Medication Administered and Prescribed to Patients With an Ankle Sprain Treated in an Emergency Department: A Record-Based Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Recent data indicate that patients treated in the emergency department for an ankle sprain receive multiple medications. However, research has not been able to accurately identify all the medications because of study limitations. The primary purpose of this study was to document the type of medication, number of doses, and number of encounters given a prescription at discharge or instructions to take over-the-counter medication. The secondary purpose was to determine if the proportion of encounters given each type of medication varied on the basis of age, sex, race, and year.

METHODS

A retrospective record-based cohort study design was used to review the electronic medical records (N = 1740) of encounters reporting to a southeast academic level 1 trauma center and diagnosed with an ankle sprain between 2013 and 2017. All relevant data were extracted for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, opioids, and nonopioid analgesics.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight percent of the encounters had at least 1 dose of medication administered in the emergency department. Twenty-eight percent received a prescription at discharge, and 54.5% were instructed to take over-the-counter medication. Cumulatively, opioids accounted for most of the medications, but the yearly rates declined from 2013 to 2017. A greater proportion of patients aged ≤15 years received nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or nonopioid analgesics. Most of the patients aged >15 years received opioid medication.

DISCUSSION

Patients are primarily given an opioid or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug in the emergency department. Fewer patients receive a prescription at discharge but are regularly instructed to take over-the-counter medication.

Development of a New Daily Activities Scale for the Affected Hand after Stroke

Objectives:

There are few scales that reflect the function of the stroke-affected arm as it relates to the performance of daily activities while also indicating the difficulty of scale items. In this study, we developed the Activities Specific Upper-extremity Hemiparesis Scale (ASUHS) to evaluate daily activities performable by the affected arm after stroke. We also clarified the validity, reliability, and item difficulty of the scale.

Methods:

The participants were 145 patients with stroke who were consecutively admitted to a convalescent rehabilitation ward. The unidimensionality of ASUHS was assessed by principal component analysis. Analyses of item discrimination and content validity were conducted to assess the overall validity. Reliability was evaluated by assessing internal consistency and inter-rater reliability. Item difficulties were determined by Rasch analysis.

Results:

Unidimensionality, high discrimination, and good content validity were shown for all items. ASUHS consists of a dominant hand scale and non-dominant hand scale. Both scales showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.99) and substantial inter-rater reliability (Cohen’s Kappa coefficient = 0.74 and 0.75, respectively). Item difficulty was determined as being in the range –8.71 to +5.18 logit.

Conclusions:

This study suggested good validity and reliability of ASUHS. Furthermore, because the item difficulties of daily activities performed by the affected arm were clarified, therapists can use ASUHS to identify the process that should be the next focus for training. Consequently, therapists may be able to train patients in daily activities that match the affected arm’s ability step by step rather than determining training activities empirically.

Do physical therapists follow evidence-based guidelines when managing musculoskeletal conditions? Systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Physicians often refer patients with musculoskeletal conditions to physical therapy. However, it is unclear to what extent physical therapists' treatment choices align with the evidence. The aim of this systematic review was to determine what percentage of physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions agree with management recommendations in evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

We performed searches in Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Scopus and Web of Science combining terms synonymous with 'practice patterns' and 'physical therapy' from the earliest record to April 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Studies that quantified physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions through surveys of physical therapists, audits of clinical notes and other methods (eg, audits of billing codes, clinical observation) were eligible for inclusion.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Using medians and IQRs, we summarised the percentage of physical therapists who chose treatments that were recommended, not recommended and had no recommendation, and summarised the percentage of physical therapy treatments provided for various musculoskeletal conditions within the categories of recommended, not recommended and no recommendation. Results were stratified by condition and how treatment choices were assessed (surveys of physical therapists vs audits of clinical notes).

RESULTS

We included 94 studies. For musculoskeletal conditions, the median percentage of physical therapists who chose recommended treatments was 54% (n=23 studies; surveys completed by physical therapists) and the median percentage of patients that received recommended physical therapy-delivered treatments was 63% (n=8 studies; audits of clinical notes). For treatments not recommended, these percentages were 43% (n=37; surveys) and 27% (n=20; audits). For treatments with no recommendation, these percentages were 81% (n=37; surveys) and 45% (n=31; audits).

CONCLUSIONS

Many physical therapists seem not to follow evidence-based guidelines when managing musculoskeletal conditions. There is considerable scope to increase use of recommended treatments and reduce use of treatments that are not recommended.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018094979.

What is the quality of clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of acute lateral ankle ligament sprains in adults? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Acute lateral ankle ligament sprains (LALS) are a common injury seen by many different clinicians. Knowledge translation advocates that clinicians use Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) to aid clinical decision making and apply evidence-based treatment. The quality and consistency of recommendations from these CPGs are currently unknown. The aims of this systematic review are to find and critically appraise CPGs for the acute treatment of LALS in adults.

METHODS

Several medical databases were searched. Two authors independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria. The content of each CPG was critically appraised independently, by three authors, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument online version called My AGREE PLUS. Data related to recommendations for the treatment of acute LALS were abstracted independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

This study found CPGs for physicians and physical therapists (Netherlands), physical therapists, athletic trainers, physicians, and nurses (USA) and nurses (Canada and Australia). Seven CPGs underwent a full AGREE II critical appraisal. None of the CPGs scored highly in all domains. The lowest domain score was for domain 5, applicability (discussion of facilitators and barriers to application, provides advice for practical use, consideration of resource implications, and monitoring/auditing criteria) achieving an exceptionally low joint total score of 9% for all CPGs. The five most recent CPGs scored a zero for applicability. Other areas of weakness were in rigour of development and editorial independence.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall quality of the existing LALS CPGs is poor and majority are out of date. The interpretation of the evidence between the CPG development groups is clearly not consistent. Lack of consistent methodology of CPGs is a barrier to implementation.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Systematic review registered with PROSPERO ( CRD42015025478 ).

Excellent adherence and no contamination by physiotherapists involved in a randomized controlled trial on reactivation of COPD patients: a qualitative process evaluation study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the adherence of physiotherapists to the study protocol and the occurrence of contamination bias during the course of a randomized controlled trial with a recruitment period of 2 years and a 1-year follow-up (COPE-II study).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In the COPE-II study, intervention patients received a standardized physiotherapeutic reactivation intervention (COPE-active) and control patients received usual care. The latter could include regular physiotherapy treatment. Information about the adherence of physiotherapists with the study protocol was collected by performing a single interview with both intervention and control patients. Patients were only interviewed when they were currently receiving physiotherapy. Interviews were performed during two separate time periods, 10 months apart. Nine characteristics of the COPE-active intervention were scored. Scores were converted into percentages (0%, no aspects of COPE-active; 100%, full implementation of COPE-active).

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were interviewed (first period: intervention n = 14 and control n = 10; second period: intervention n = 18 and control n = 9). Adherence with the COPE-active protocol was high (median scores: period 1, 96.8%; period 2, 92.1%), and large contrasts in scores between the intervention and control group were found (period 1: 96.8% versus 22.7%; period 2: 92.1% versus 25.0%). The scores of patients treated by seven physiotherapists who trained patients of both study groups were similar to the scores of patients treated by physiotherapists who only trained patients of one study group.

CONCLUSION

The adherence of physiotherapists with the COPE-active protocol was high, remained unchanged over time, and no obvious contamination bias occurred.