Deans' stroke musings: Implementing a function-based cognitive strategy intervention within inter-professional stroke rehabilitation teams: Changes in provider knowledge, self-efficacy and practice

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Saturday, March 16, 2019

Implementing a function-based cognitive strategy intervention within inter-professional stroke rehabilitation teams: Changes in provider knowledge, self-efficacy and practice

Once again the stroke survivor is responsible for every piece of their recovery, their doctor is doing nothing.

Implementing a function-based cognitive strategy intervention within inter-professional stroke rehabilitation teams: Changes in provider knowledge, self-efficacy and practice

Published: March 11, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212988

Abstract

Background

The Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) approach is a complex rehabilitation intervention in which clients are taught to use problem-solving cognitive strategies to acquire personally-meaningful functional skills, and health care providers are required to shift control regarding treatment goals and intervention strategies to their clients. A multi-faceted, supported, knowledge translation (KT) initiative was targeted at the implementation of CO-OP in inpatient stroke rehabilitation teams at five freestanding rehabilitation hospitals. The study objective was to estimate changes in rehabilitation clinicians’ knowledge, self-efficacy, and practice related to implementing CO-OP.

Methods

A single arm pre-post and 6-month follow up study was conducted. CO-OP KT consisted of a 2-day workshop, 4 months of implementation support, a consolidation session, and infrastructure support. In addition, a sustainability plan was implemented. Consistent with CO-OP principles, teams were given control over specific implementation goals and strategies. Multiple choice questions (MCQ) were used to assess knowledge. A self-efficacy questionnaire with 3 subscales (Promoting Cognitive Strategy Use, PCSU; Client-Focused Therapy, CFT; Top-Down Assessment and Treatment, TDAT) was developed for the study. Medical record audits were used to investigate practice change. Data analysis for knowledge and self-efficacy utilized mixed effects models. Medical record audits were analyzed with frequency counts and chi-squares.

Results

Sixty-five health care providers consisting mainly of occupational and physical therapists entered the study. Mixed effects models revealed intervention effects for MCQs, CFT, and PCSU at post intervention and follow-up, but no effect on TDAT. No charts showed any evidence of CO-OP use at baseline, compared to 8/40 (20%) post intervention. Post intervention there was a trend towards reduction in impairment goals and significantly more component goals were set (z = 2.7, p = .007).