Physical Therapists' Use of Functional Electrical Stimulation for Clients With Stroke: Frequency, Barriers, and Facilitators

This is all as a result of no publicly published protocols. If we had published protocols survivors could look them up and shame doctors and therapists not using them, Stroke departments could remove staff that don't keep up-to-date with the latest research. This should be a function of our fucking failures of stroke associations, but no, press releases are more important.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26700271

Auchstaetter N¹, Luc J², Lukye S³, Lynd K⁴, Schemenauer S⁵, Whittaker M⁶, Musselman KE⁷.

Author information

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Best practice guidelines for stroke rehabilitation recommend functional electrical stimulation (FES) to improve gait and upper extremity function. (And where the hell are those guidelines?)Whether these guidelines have been implemented in practice is unknown.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine the frequency with which physical therapists use FES to address common therapeutic goals post-stroke, and to identify the barriers to and facilitators of FES use.

DESIGN:

A cross-sectional, survey study.

METHODS:

A valid and reliable online survey was sent to Canadian physical therapists. Questions about demographic characteristics, FES use, knowledge of FES literature, and barriers and facilitators were posed. Closed-ended questions were analyzed with descriptive statistics and index scoring to produce summary scores. Pearson or point-biserial correlation coefficients correlated FES use with demographic variables. Open-ended questions about barriers and facilitators were analyzed by three researchers using a conventional content analysis.

RESULTS:

298 physical therapists responded. Use of FES for clients with stroke was low for all therapeutic goals queried (improve walking, arm function, muscle strength/endurance, sensation, shoulder subluxation and spasticity). However, 52.6% stated that they would like to increase their use of FES. Over 40% of respondents were unsure of the strength of the evidence supporting FES for stroke care. Physical therapists with post-graduate FES training were more likely to use FES (rpb=0.471, p<0.001). A lack of access to resources, such as time, equipment and training, was the most frequently cited barrier to FES use.

LIMITATIONS:

As an observational study, cause and effect relationships for FES use cannot be identified.

CONCLUSIONS:

FES is not widely used by physical therapists in stroke rehabilitation. Improving access to resources, in particular continuing education, may facilitate the implementation of FES into clinical practice.
© 2015 American Physical Therapy Association.

PMID:

26700271

[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]