To what extent are guidelines used in spasticity clinics? A qualitative study of facilitators and barriers to spasticity guideline implementation.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Clinical Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1177/02692155241239811
Edwina Sutherland, Gavin Williams, Fiona Dobson, Bridget Hill, Chi Ching Angie Woo, Belinda Lawford
{"title":"To what extent are guidelines used in spasticity clinics? A qualitative study of facilitators and barriers to spasticity guideline implementation.","authors":"Edwina Sutherland, Gavin Williams, Fiona Dobson, Bridget Hill, Chi Ching Angie Woo, Belinda Lawford","doi":"10.1177/02692155241239811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the common understanding of focal muscle spasticity guidelines amongst clinicians working in spasticity clinics. To examine the facilitators and barriers to their implementation as well as their influence on clinic processes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A qualitative study based on a phenomenological approach.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Online videoconferencing platform.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Sixteen experienced multi-disciplinary clinicians providing specialised care across 12 spasticity clinics in Victoria, Australia.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Observational.</p><p><strong>Main measures: </strong>Two independent reviewers performed line by line coding of transcripts. Reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken with themes/subthemes inductively derived.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven key themes emerged. First, knowledge of specific guideline recommendations was low amongst some clinicians. Second, there is a lack of health service resources to support guideline implementation. Third, a limited evidence base for guidelines affected clinicians' willingness to implement the recommendations. Fourth, peer support was highly valued but opportunities to collaborate were limited. Fifth, a large amount of intrinsic motivation and personal time was required from clinicians to successfully implement guideline recommendations. Sixth, the standardisation of clinic processes was one way in which clinicians felt they could better align their clinical practice to guidelines. Lastly, guidelines overall had a moderate influence on spasticity clinic processes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Knowledge of recommendations varied but, overall, guidelines had an influence on clinic processes and staff perceptions across the state-wide services. Health service resources, limited evidence for guideline recommendations and time constraints were considered barriers to spasticity guideline implementation. Multi-disciplinary expertise and teamwork, the individual's motivation to change and inter-clinic collaboration were considered to be the facilitators.</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1101-1108"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155241239811","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine the common understanding of focal muscle spasticity guidelines amongst clinicians working in spasticity clinics. To examine the facilitators and barriers to their implementation as well as their influence on clinic processes.

Design: A qualitative study based on a phenomenological approach.

Setting: Online videoconferencing platform.

Participants: Sixteen experienced multi-disciplinary clinicians providing specialised care across 12 spasticity clinics in Victoria, Australia.

Intervention: Observational.

Main measures: Two independent reviewers performed line by line coding of transcripts. Reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken with themes/subthemes inductively derived.

Results: Seven key themes emerged. First, knowledge of specific guideline recommendations was low amongst some clinicians. Second, there is a lack of health service resources to support guideline implementation. Third, a limited evidence base for guidelines affected clinicians' willingness to implement the recommendations. Fourth, peer support was highly valued but opportunities to collaborate were limited. Fifth, a large amount of intrinsic motivation and personal time was required from clinicians to successfully implement guideline recommendations. Sixth, the standardisation of clinic processes was one way in which clinicians felt they could better align their clinical practice to guidelines. Lastly, guidelines overall had a moderate influence on spasticity clinic processes.

Conclusions: Knowledge of recommendations varied but, overall, guidelines had an influence on clinic processes and staff perceptions across the state-wide services. Health service resources, limited evidence for guideline recommendations and time constraints were considered barriers to spasticity guideline implementation. Multi-disciplinary expertise and teamwork, the individual's motivation to change and inter-clinic collaboration were considered to be the facilitators.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
痉挛诊所在多大程度上使用了指南?关于痉挛指南实施的促进因素和障碍的定性研究。
目的确定痉挛诊所临床医生对局灶性肌肉痉挛指南的共同理解。研究实施指南的促进因素和障碍及其对临床流程的影响:设计:基于现象学方法的定性研究:环境:在线视频会议平台:16名经验丰富的多学科临床医生在澳大利亚维多利亚州的12家痉挛诊所提供专业护理:干预措施:观察:两名独立审查员对记录誊本进行逐行编码。进行反思性主题分析,归纳出主题/次主题:结果:出现了七个关键主题。首先,一些临床医生对具体的指南建议了解甚少。第二,缺乏支持指南实施的医疗服务资源。第三,指南的证据基础有限,影响了临床医生实施建议的意愿。第四,同行支持受到高度重视,但合作机会有限。第五,临床医生需要大量的内在动力和个人时间才能成功实施指南建议。第六,临床医生认为规范诊疗流程是使其临床实践更好地与指南保持一致的一种方法。最后,指南对痉挛门诊流程的总体影响不大:对建议的了解程度各不相同,但总体而言,指南对全州服务机构的诊疗流程和工作人员的看法都有影响。医疗服务资源、指南建议的证据有限以及时间限制被认为是痉挛指南实施的障碍。多学科专业知识和团队合作、个人改变的动力以及诊所间的合作被认为是促进因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
117
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review. Effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment associated with transcranial direct current stimulation in individuals with chronic low back pain: A double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Efficacy of pelvic floor muscle training with physical therapy for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prognostic factors of pain, disability, and poor outcomes in persons with neck pain - an umbrella review. Working towards consensus on the assessment of mood after severe acquired brain injury: Focus groups with UK-based professionals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1