Acute Care Physical Therapy Practice Analysis Identifies the Need for a Core Outcome Measurement Set

IF 0.5 Q4 REHABILITATION Journal of Acute Care Physical Therapy Pub Date : 2021-01-13 DOI:10.1097/JAT.0000000000000161
K. Mayer, Traci Norris, Sowmya Kumble, N. Morelli, S. Gorman, P. Ohtake
{"title":"Acute Care Physical Therapy Practice Analysis Identifies the Need for a Core Outcome Measurement Set","authors":"K. Mayer, Traci Norris, Sowmya Kumble, N. Morelli, S. Gorman, P. Ohtake","doi":"10.1097/JAT.0000000000000161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study's primary objective is to determine the current use of outcome measures (OMs) by physical therapists practicing in acute care settings. Secondarily, this study aims to establish whether physical therapists support the development of a core OM set for use in acute care settings. Methods: An investigator-developed online survey (Qualtrics) was distributed to acute care physical therapy stakeholders, including practicing clinicians, educators, and administrators. The survey contained 4 sections with 28 questions: (1) acute care physical therapy practice patterns; (2) use of OMs in practice; (3) the development of a core OM set; and (4) demographic, education, and experience in the physical therapy profession. Descriptive statistics were used to assess response frequency and rationale for the use of specific OMs. Results: A convenience sample of 170 acute physical therapy stakeholders completed the survey. Respondents represented 38 states, with most respondents (n = 153; 90%) practicing in one or more acute care specialty areas. The majority of respondents (n = 145; 83%) reported using an OM more than 50% of the time in their practice. Physical function was the main construct (n = 163; 96%) respondents assessed with an OM. Acute care physical therapists primarily used OMs to track response to interventions (n = 134; 79%) and develop a care plan (n = 91; 54%). Length of time required to complete an OM and its clinical utility were the most common rationales for selecting an OM (n = 150, 88%; n = 147, 86%, respectively). Strong support was found for developing a core OM set for acute physical therapist practice (n = 147; 86%). The preferred methods for the organization of a core OM set, in rank order, were by diagnosis, International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework, domains of health, and settings/location. Conclusion: Most physical therapists participating in this study of practice in acute care reported using OMs in their daily practice. This survey confirms the desire to develop a core OM set with high clinical utility for use in acute care settings.","PeriodicalId":42472,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Acute Care Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Acute Care Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JAT.0000000000000161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Purpose: This study's primary objective is to determine the current use of outcome measures (OMs) by physical therapists practicing in acute care settings. Secondarily, this study aims to establish whether physical therapists support the development of a core OM set for use in acute care settings. Methods: An investigator-developed online survey (Qualtrics) was distributed to acute care physical therapy stakeholders, including practicing clinicians, educators, and administrators. The survey contained 4 sections with 28 questions: (1) acute care physical therapy practice patterns; (2) use of OMs in practice; (3) the development of a core OM set; and (4) demographic, education, and experience in the physical therapy profession. Descriptive statistics were used to assess response frequency and rationale for the use of specific OMs. Results: A convenience sample of 170 acute physical therapy stakeholders completed the survey. Respondents represented 38 states, with most respondents (n = 153; 90%) practicing in one or more acute care specialty areas. The majority of respondents (n = 145; 83%) reported using an OM more than 50% of the time in their practice. Physical function was the main construct (n = 163; 96%) respondents assessed with an OM. Acute care physical therapists primarily used OMs to track response to interventions (n = 134; 79%) and develop a care plan (n = 91; 54%). Length of time required to complete an OM and its clinical utility were the most common rationales for selecting an OM (n = 150, 88%; n = 147, 86%, respectively). Strong support was found for developing a core OM set for acute physical therapist practice (n = 147; 86%). The preferred methods for the organization of a core OM set, in rank order, were by diagnosis, International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework, domains of health, and settings/location. Conclusion: Most physical therapists participating in this study of practice in acute care reported using OMs in their daily practice. This survey confirms the desire to develop a core OM set with high clinical utility for use in acute care settings.
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
急性护理物理治疗实践分析确定了对核心结果测量集的需求
目的:本研究的主要目的是确定急性护理环境中物理治疗师目前使用的结果测量(OMs)。其次,本研究旨在确定物理治疗师是否支持在急性护理环境中使用核心OM集的发展。方法:一项由研究者开发的在线调查(qualics)被分发给急性护理物理治疗利益相关者,包括执业临床医生、教育工作者和管理人员。调查共分为4个部分,共28个问题:(1)急症护理物理治疗实践模式;(2) OMs在实践中的应用;(3)核心OM集的开发;(4)人口统计学、教育程度和物理治疗专业经验。使用描述性统计来评估响应频率和使用特定OMs的理由。结果:方便抽样170名急性物理治疗利益相关者完成调查。受访者代表38个州,大多数受访者(n = 153;90%)在一个或多个急症护理专业领域执业。大多数受访者(n = 145;83%)表示在他们的实践中使用OM的时间超过50%。生理功能是主要构形(n = 163;96%)受访者接受OM评估。急性护理物理治疗师主要使用OMs来跟踪对干预措施的反应(n = 134;79%)并制定护理计划(n = 91;54%)。完成OM所需的时间长度及其临床效用是选择OM的最常见理由(n = 150,88%;N = 147,分别为86%)。为急性物理治疗师的实践开发核心OM套件(n = 147;86%)。组织核心OM集的首选方法按等级顺序依次为:诊断、国际功能、残疾和健康分类(ICF)框架、健康领域和环境/地点。结论:大多数参与急性护理实践研究的物理治疗师报告在日常实践中使用OMs。这项调查证实了开发一套具有高临床实用性的核心OM的愿望,用于急性护理环境。
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
自引率
40.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Creating Value Together: A Triad of Clinicians, Administrators, and Researchers Overcoming Barriers to Unique Valuation of Acute Care Physical Therapy Where Do We Go From Here? An Editor's Update on the Journal Exploring the Addition of Simulation-Based Learning Experiences to Prepare Student Physical Therapist Assistants for Inpatient Clinical Experience Mobility Checklist for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and a Femoral Intra-aortic Balloon Pump
×
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