Purpose
In
search of Kipling’s six honest serving men in upper limb rehabilitation
after stroke, we sought to investigate clinicians’ perspective of when and where to begin therapy, how much and what therapy to provide, and who and why (or not) to provide therapy.
Materials & methods:
Within-participant case cross-over experiments were nested within an
anonymous web-based questionnaire (21 questions, three cases). Graph
theory-based voting to produce ranked ordered lists and mixed-effect
logistic regression were performed.
Results
In
total, 225 Australian stroke clinicians responded: 53% occupational
therapists, 61% working in acute/inpatient stroke setting. Most
respondents indicated they did not have a protocol/expectation regarding
when (62%), how much (84%) or what (60%) therapy to provide in their
setting. Respondents ranked 24-h to 7-days post-stroke as the optimal
time to commence therapy, and 30- to 60-min per day as the optimal dose
to provide. Within-participant experiments demonstrated that greater
motor recovery as time progressed increased the odds of offering
therapy, while lack of motor recovery, shoulder pain, neurological
decline and sole therapist reduced the odds.
Conclusion
We
need to develop an evidence base concerning Kipling’s six honest
serving men and equip clinicians with clinical decision-making skills
aligned with this focus.
IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION
-
Most
clinicians did not have access to a protocol / clinical pathway which
defines when, how much and what upper limb therapy to provide after
stroke, which may be improved by providing individual clinicians with
organisational support to make therapy decisions.
-
To improve the personalisation of upper limb rehabilitation in clinical practice, we need to understand when and where after stroke to begin therapy, how much and what therapy to provide, as well as who and why (clinical decision-making) to provide therapy.
-
Clinicians
perceive clinical trials as successful if the therapy can demonstrate
recovery that is greater than a minimal clinical important difference
(MCID).
No comments:
Post a Comment