Experiences of Physical Therapists and Professional Leaders With Implementing a Toolkit to Advance Walking Assessment Poststroke: A Realist Evaluation

Allied Health Clinicians' Uptake of Evidence in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review of Determinants Targeted in Implementation Studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether targeting specific implementation determinants is associated with allied health clinicians' uptake of evidence when implemented within stroke rehabilitation settings.

DATA SOURCES

7 key databases were searched to identify articles published between 1990 and 2022 for inclusion. Reference lists of relevant articles were hand searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were independently screened by 2 authors and included if the implementation intervention targeted allied health clinical practice in any stroke rehabilitation context and reported at least 1 quantitative measure of evidence uptake. Thirty studies met inclusion criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were independently extracted by the first and second author. Implementation outcomes for each study were categorized as either mostly successful, partially successful, or not successful based on the degree of evidence uptake achieved. Determinants targeted were categorized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Patterns between the degree of evidence uptake and determinants targeted across studies were analyzed by the first and second authors in 1 of 3 groups: A (pre-post statistical analysis), B (pre-post descriptive analysis), or C (post-only descriptive analysis). Patterns between evidence uptake and determinants targeted were first identified within groups A and B, with group C consulted to support findings. All studies categorized as "mostly successful" targeted facilitation in combination with establishing face-to-face networks and communication strategies. Conversely, no studies rated "not successful" targeted either of these determinants. Studies rated "partially successful" targeted either 1, but seldom both, of these determinants.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has provided descriptive evidence of determinants which may be important to target for allied health clinicians' uptake of evidence within stroke rehabilitation settings.

Knowledge Translation Task Force for core measures clinical practice guideline: a short report on the process and utilization

BACKGROUND

As part of the 2018 Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG): A Core Set of Outcome Measures for Adults with Neurologic Conditions Undergoing Rehabilitation, a Knowledge Translation (KT) Task Force was convened. The purpose of this short report was to (1) demonstrate the potential impact of a CPG KT Task Force through a practical example of efforts to implement a CPG into neurologic physical therapy practice and (2) describe the process to convene a KT Task Force and develop products (KT Toolkit) to facilitate implementation of the CPG.

METHODS

To describe the process used by the KT Task Force to develop and review a KT Toolkit for implementation of the CPG.

RESULTS

Utilizing the Knowledge-To-Action Cycle framework, eight tools were developed as part of the KT Toolkit and are available with open access to the public. Findings indicate that the Core Outcome Measures Homepage, which houses the KT Toolkit, has had greater than 70,000 views since its publication.

CONCLUSIONS

This short report serves as an example of the efforts made to implement a CPG into physical therapy practice. The processes to facilitate KT and the tools developed can inform future implementation efforts and underscore the importance of having a KT Task Force to implement a CPG. Moving forward, KT Task Forces should be convened to implement new or revised guidelines.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

N/A.

The role of champions in the implementation of technology in healthcare services: a systematic mixed studies review

BACKGROUND

Champions play a critical role in implementing technology within healthcare services. While prior studies have explored the presence and characteristics of champions, this review delves into the experiences of healthcare personnel holding champion roles, as well as the experiences of healthcare personnel interacting with them. By synthesizing existing knowledge, this review aims to inform decisions regarding the inclusion of champions as a strategy in technology implementation and guide healthcare personnel in these roles.

METHODS

A systematic mixed studies review, covering qualitative, quantitative, or mixed designs, was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023. The search spanned Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus, focusing on studies published from 2012 onwards. The review centered on health personnel serving as champions in technology implementation within healthcare services. Quality assessments utilized the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

RESULTS

From 1629 screened studies, 23 were included. The champion role was often examined within the broader context of technology implementation. Limited studies explicitly explored experiences related to the champion role from both champions' and health personnel's perspectives. Champions emerged as promoters of technology, supporting its adoption. Success factors included anchoring and selection processes, champions' expertise, and effective role performance.

DISCUSSION

The specific tasks and responsibilities assigned to champions differed across reviewed studies, highlighting that the role of champion is a broad one, dependent on the technology being implemented and the site implementing it. Findings indicated a correlation between champion experiences and organizational characteristics. The role's firm anchoring within the organization is crucial. Limited evidence suggests that volunteering, hiring newly graduated health personnel, and having multiple champions can facilitate technology implementation. Existing studies predominantly focused on client health records and hospitals, emphasizing the need for broader research across healthcare services.

CONCLUSIONS

With a clear mandate, dedicated time, and proper training, health personnel in champion roles can significantly contribute professional, technological, and personal competencies to facilitate technology adoption within healthcare services. The review finds that the concept of champions is a broad one and finds varied definitions of the champion role concept. This underscores the importance of describing organizational characteristics, and highlights areas for future research to enhance technology implementation strategies in different healthcare settings with support of a champion.

Standardized tools for assessing balance and mobility in stroke clinical practice guidelines worldwide: A scoping review

Background

Use of standardized tools to assess balance and mobility limitations is a recommended practice in stroke rehabilitation. The extent to which clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for stroke rehabilitation recommend specific tools and provide resources to support their implementation is unknown.

Purpose

To identify and describe standardized, performance-based tools for assessing balance and/or mobility and describe postural control components challenged, the approach used to select tools, and resources provided for clinical implementation, in CPGs for stroke.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted. We included CPGs with recommendations on the delivery of stroke rehabilitation to address balance and mobility limitations. We searched seven electronic databases and grey literature. Pairs of reviewers reviewed abstracts and full texts in duplicate. We abstracted data about CPGs, standardized assessment tools, the approach for tool selection, and resources. Experts identified postural control components challenged by each tool.

Results

Of the 19 CPGs included in the review, 7 (37%) and 12 (63%) were from middle- and high-income countries, respectively. Ten CPGs (53%) recommended or suggested 27 unique tools. Across 10 CPGs, the most commonly cited tools were the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) (90%), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) (80%), Timed Up and Go Test (80%) and 10-Meter Walk Test (70%). The tool most frequently cited in middle- and high-income countries was the BBS (3/3 CPGs), and 6MWT (7/7 CPGs), respectively. Across 27 tools, the three components of postural control most frequently challenged were underlying motor systems (100%), anticipatory postural control (96%), and dynamic stability (85%). Five CPGs provided information in varying detail on how tools were selected; only 1 CPG provided a level of recommendation. Seven CPGs provided resources to support clinical implementation; one CPG from a middle-income country included a resource available in a CPG from a high-income country.

Conclusion

CPGs for stroke rehabilitation do not consistently provide recommendations for standardized tools to assess balance and mobility or resources to facilitate clinical application. Reporting of processes for tool selection and recommendation is inadequate. Review findings can be used to inform global efforts to develop and translate recommendations and resources for using standardized tools to assess balance and mobility post-stroke.

Systematic Review Registration

https://osf.io/, identifier: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6RBDV.

Assessment of Walking Speed and Distance Post-Stroke Increases After Providing a Theory-Based Toolkit

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

While underutilized, poststroke administration of the 10-m walk test (10mWT) and 6-minute walk test (6MWT) can improve care and is considered best practice. We aimed to evaluate provision of a toolkit designed to increase use of these tests by physical therapists (PTs).

METHODS

In a before-and-after study, 54 PTs and professional leaders in 9 hospitals were provided a toolkit and access to a clinical expert over a 5-month period. The toolkit comprised a guide, smartphone app, and video, and described how to set up walkways, implement learning sessions, administer walk tests, and interpret and apply test results clinically. The proportion of hospital visits for which each walk test score was documented at least once (based on abstracted health records of ambulatory patients) were compared over 8-month periods pre- and post-intervention using generalized mixed models.

RESULTS

Data from 347 and 375 pre- and postintervention hospital visits, respectively, were analyzed. Compared with preintervention, the odds of implementing the 10mWT were 12 times greater (odds ratio [OR] = 12.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.8, 26.3), and of implementing the 6MWT were approximately 4 times greater (OR = 3.9, 95% CI 2.3, 6.7), post-intervention, after adjusting for hospital setting, ambulation ability, presence of aphasia and cognitive impairment, and provider-level clustering. Unadjusted change in the percentage of visits for which the 10mWT/6MWT was documented at least once was smallest in acute care settings (2.0/3.8%), and largest in inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation settings (28.0/19.9% and 29.4/23.4%, respectively).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Providing a comprehensive toolkit to hospitals with professional leaders likely contributed to increasing 10mWT and 6MWT administration during inpatient and outpatient stroke rehabilitation.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A390 ).