Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess physiotherapists’ clinical use and acceptance of a novel telemonitoring platform to facilitate the recording of measurements during rehabilitation of patients following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Additionally, suggestions for platform improvement were explored. Methods: Physiotherapists from seven Dutch private physiotherapy practices participated in the study. Data were collected through log files, a technology acceptance questionnaire and focus group meetings using the “buy a feature” method. Data regarding platform use and acceptance (7-point/11-point numeric rating scale) were descriptively analysed. Total scores were calculated for the features suggested to improve the platform, based on the priority rating (1 = nice to have, 2 = should have, 3 = must have). Results: Participating physiotherapists (N = 15, mean [SD] age 33.1 [9.1] years) together treated 52 patients during the study period. Platform use by the therapists was generally limited, with the number of log-ins per patient varying from 3 to 73. Overall, therapists’ acceptance of the platform was low to moderate, with average (SD) scores ranging from 2.5 (1.1) to 4.9 (1.5) on the 7-point Likert scale. The three most important suggestions for platform improvement were: (1) development of a native app, (2) system interoperability, and (3) flexibility regarding type and frequency of measurements. Conclusions: Even though health care professionals were involved in the design of the telemonitoring platform, use in routine care was limited. Physiotherapists recognized the relevance of using health technology, but there are still barriers to overcome in order to successfully implement eHealth in routine care.
When physicians and nurses are looking at the same patient, they may not see the same picture. If assuming that the clinical reasoning of both professions is alike and ignoring possible differences, aspects essential for care can be overlooked. Understanding the multifaceted concept of clinical reasoning of both professions may provide insight into the nature and purpose of their practices and benefit patient care, education and research. We aimed to identify, compare and contrast the documented features of clinical reasoning of physicians and nurses through the lens of layered analysis and to conduct a simultaneous concept analysis. The protocol of this systematic integrative review was published doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049862. A comprehensive search was performed in four databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Psychinfo, and Web of Science) from 30th March 2020 to 27th May 2020. A total of 69 Empirical and theoretical journal articles about clinical reasoning of practitioners were included: 27 nursing, 37 medical, and five combining both perspectives. Two reviewers screened the identified papers for eligibility and assessed the quality of the methodologically diverse articles. We used an onion model, based on three layers: Philosophy, Principles, and Techniques to extract and organize the data. Commonalities and differences were identified on professional paradigms, theories, intentions, content, antecedents, attributes, outcomes, and contextual factors. The detected philosophical differences were located on a care-cure and subjective-objective continuum. We observed four principle contrasts: a broad or narrow focus, consideration of the patient as such or of the patient and his relatives, hypotheses to explain or to understand, and argumentation based on causality or association. In the technical layer a difference in the professional concepts of diagnosis and the degree of patient involvement in the reasoning process were perceived. Clinical reasoning can be analysed by breaking it down into layers, and the onion model resulted in detailed features. Subsequently insight was obtained in the differences between nursing and medical reasoning. The origin of these differences is in the philosophical layer (professional paradigms, intentions). This review can be used as a first step toward gaining a better understanding and collaboration in patient care, education and research across the nursing and medical professions.
MULTIFILE
Background: Neck pain is the fourth major cause of disability worldwide but sufficient evidence regarding treatment is not available. This study is a first exploratory attempt to gain insight into and consensus on the clinical reasoning of experts in patients with non-specific neck pain. Objective: First, we aimed to inventory expert opinions regarding the indication for physiotherapy when, other than neck pain, no positive signs and symptoms and no positive diagnostic tests are present. Secondly, we aimed to determine which measurement instruments are being used and when they are used to support and objectify the clinical reasoning process. Finally, we wanted to establish consensus among experts regarding the use of unimodal interventions in patients with non-specific neck pain, i.e. their sequential linear clinical reasoning. Study design: A Delphi study.Methods:A Web-based Delphi study was conducted. Fifteen experts (teachers and researchers) participated. Results: Pain alone was deemed not be an indication for physiotherapy treatment. PROMs are mainly used for evaluative purposes and physical tests for diagnostic and evaluative purposes. Eighteen different variants of sequential linear clinical reasoning were investigated within our Delphi study. Only 6 out of 18 variants of sequential linear clinical reasoning reached more than 50% consensus. Conclusion: Pain alone is not an indication for physiotherapy. Insight has been obtained into which measurement instruments are used and when they are used. Consensus about sequential linear lines of clinical reasoning was poor.
LINK
For English see below In dit project werkt het Lectoraat ICT-innovaties in de Zorg van hogeschool Windesheim samen met zorganisaties de ZorgZaak, De Stouwe, en IJsselheem en daarnaast Zorgcampus Noorderboog, Zorgtrainingscentrum Regio Zwolle, Patiëntenfederatie NPCF, VitaalThuis, ActiZ, Vilans, V&VN, Universiteit Twente en het Lectoraat Innoveren in de Ouderenzorg van Windesheim aan het in staat stellen van wijkverpleegkundigen om autonoom en doelmatig, op basis van klinisch redeneren, eHealth te indiceren en in te zetten bij cliënten. De aanleiding voor dit project wordt gevormd door de wijzigingen per 1 januari 2015 in de Zorgverzekeringswet. Wijkverpleegkundigen zijn sindsdien zelf verantwoordelijk voor de indicatiestelling en zorgtoewijzing voor verzorging en verpleging thuis: zij moeten bepalen welke zorg hun cliënten nodig hebben gezien hun individuele situaties, en hoe die zorg het best geleverd kan worden. Zorgverzekeraars leggen hierbij minimumeisen op, o.a. met betrekking tot de inzet van eHealth. Wijkverpleegkundigen hebben op dit moment echter niet of nauwelijks ervaring met het inzetten en toepassen van technologische toepassingen zoals eHealth. Vraagarticulatie leidde tot de volgende praktijkvraagstelling: 1. Hoe kunnen wijkverpleegkundigen worden voorzien in hun informatiebehoefte over eHealth? 2. Hoe kunnen wijkverpleegkundigen worden ondersteund in hun klinisch redeneren over het inzetten van eHealth bij hun cliënten? 3. Hoe kunnen wijkverpleegkundigen worden ondersteund bij het inzetten van eHealth in hun zorgproces? Het project levert hiertoe drie bijdragen: - De eerste bijdrage is een duurzaam geborgde keuzehulp (een app voor tablet of smartphone) waarmee wijkverpleegkundigen toegang hebben tot de benodigde informatie over eHealth-toepassingen en die aansluit bij de manier waarop wijkverpleegkundigen zorg indiceren (bijvoorbeeld door relaties te leggen tussen NIC-interventies en bijpassende eHealth-toepassingen). - Informatievoorziening is niet een afdoende antwoord op de handelingsverlegenheid van de wijkverpleegkundige omdat eHealth sterk in ontwikkeling is en blijft waardoor er altijd een discrepantie zal bestaan tussen de beschikbare en de benodigde informatie. . De tweede bijdrage van dit project is daarom kennis over (en inzicht in) het klinisch redeneren over de inzet van eHealth. Deze kennis wordt in het project doorvertaald naar een trainingsmodule die erop is gericht om het klinisch redeneren van wijkverpleegkundigen over het inzetten van eHealth en andere thuiszorgtechnologie bij hun cliënten te versterken. - De derde bijdrage van dit project omhelst inbedding van bovengenoemde resultaten in het verpleegkunde-onderwijs van onder meer Windesheim en in nascholingstrajecten voor wijkverpleegkundigen. Voor duurzame, bredere inbedding in het onderwijs wordt samengewerkt met regionale zorgonderwijsnetwerken. In this project the research group IT-innovations in Health Care of Windesheim University of Applied Sciences cooperates with care organisations de ZorgZaak, De Stouwe, and IJsselheem, and stakeholders Zorgcampus Noorderboog, Zorgtrainingscentrum Regio Zwolle, Patiëntenfederatie NPCF, VitaalThuis, ActiZ, Vilans, V&VN, University of Twente, and research group Innovation of Care of Older Adults of Windesheim to enable home care nurses to autonomously and adequately, based on clinical reasoning, allocate eHealth and implement it in patient care. The motivation behind this project lies in the alterations in the care insurance legislation per January 2015. Since then, home care nurses are responsible for the care allocation of all care at home: they determine which care their clients require, taking into account the individual situations, and how this care can best be delivered. Care insurance companies impose minimum requirements for this allocation of home care, among others concerning the implementation of eHealth. Home care nurses, however, have no or limited information about and experience with technical applications like eHealth. Articulation of the demands of home care nurses resulted in the following questions: 1. How can home care nurses be provided with information concerning eHealth? 2. How can home care nurses be supported in their clinical reasoning about the deployment of eHealth by their patients? 3. How can home care nurses be supported when deploying eHealth in their care process? This project contributes in three ways: " The first contribution is a sustainable selection tool (an app for tablet or smartphone) to be used by home care nurses to provide them with the required information about eHealth applications. This selection tool will work in accordance with how home care nurses allocate care, e.g. by relating NIC-interventions to matching eHealth applications. " Providing information is an insufficient, although necessary, answer to the demands of home care nurses because of continuously developing eHealth applications. Hence, the second contribution of this project is knowledge about (and insight in) the clinical reasoning about the deployment of eHealth. This knowledge will be converted into a training module aimed at strengthening the clinical reasoning about the deployment of eHealth by their patients. " The third contribution of this project concerns embedding the selection tool and the training module in regular education (among others at Windesheim) and in refresher courses for home care nurses. Cooperation with regional care education networks will ensure sustainable and broad embedding of both the selection tool and the training module.
Meestal is er geen specifieke oorzaak te vinden voor nekpijn. Fysiotherapie richt zich daarom op algemene zaken, zoals spierkracht en beweeglijkheid. We onderzoeken of er effectieve behandelingen zijn voor subgroepen met niet-specifieke nekpijn. Met deze inzichten kunnen we fysiotherapie verbeteren.Doel We willen inzicht krijgen in effectieve behandelingen bij subgroepen patiënten met niet-specifieke nekpijn. Dit leidt uiteindelijk tot kostenvermindering voor de maatschappij en een sneller en beter herstel van de patiënten. Resultaten Dit onderzoek loopt nog. Na afronding vind je hier een samenvatting van alle resultaten. Tot nu toe is duidelijk geworden dat de volgende behandelingen effectief kunnen zijn bij patiënten met niet-specifieke nekpijn: Behandelingen gericht op kracht en uithoudingsvermogen. Behandelingen gericht op coördinatie met gebruik van visuele feedback. Een voorbeeld hiervan is patiënten met een laserlamp een parcours laten uitvoeren op een scherm. De resultaten van het onderzoek worden verwerkt in het bachelor- en masteronderwijs en cursussen binnen het werkveld. Looptijd 01 december 2015 - 01 december 2020 Aanpak Dit onderzoek bestaat uit verschillende delen: We onderzoeken wat er vanuit wetenschappelijk onderzoek al bekend is over de relatie tussen beperking in activiteit en een passende behandeling. We voeren een Delphi-studie uit onder deskundigen naar het behandelen van mensen met niet-specifieke nekpijn. We vragen ze naar een overeenstemming over de relatie tussen beperking in activiteit en een algemene behandeling, zoals het trainen van spierkracht. We onderzoeken of beweegoefeningen en/of manipulaties, als meest onderzochte behandelingen bij mensen met nekpijn, zo zijn beschreven dat we het kunnen hergebruiken. In de laatste studie onderzoeken we of beweegoefeningen en/of manipulaties effectief zijn in het herstellen van de beweeglijkheid. Het gaat hierbij om een subgroep van mensen met nekpijn die ook beperkt zijn in hun beweeglijkheid. Rapporten tot nu toe: The clinical reasoning process in randomized clinical trials with patients with non-specific neck pain is incomplete: A systematic review. Maissan F, Pool J, de Raaij E, Mollema J, Ostelo R, Wittink H. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018 Jun;35:8-17 Clinical reasoning in unimodal interventions in patients with non-specific neck pain in daily physiotherapy practice, a Delphi study. Maissan F, Pool J, Stutterheim E, Wittink H, Ostelo R., Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018 Oct;37:8-16
communicative participation, language disordersOBJECTIVE(S)/RESEARCH QUESTION(S) Speech and language therapists (SLTs) are the primary care professionals to treat language and communication disorders. Their treatment is informed by a variety of outcome measures. At present, diagnosis, monitoring of progress and evaluation are often based on performance-based and clinician-reported outcomes such as results of standardized speech, language, voice, or communication tests. These tests typically aim to capture how well the person can produce or understand language in a controlled situation, and therefore only provide limited insight in the person’s challenges in life. Performance measures do not incorporate the unobservable feelings such as a patient's effort, social embarrassment, difficulty, or confidence in communication. Nor do they address language and communication difficulties experienced by the person themselves, the impact on daily life or allow patients to set goals related to their own needs and wishes. The aim of our study is give our patients a voice and empower SLTs to incorporate their patient's perspective in planning therapy. We will Aangemaakt door ProjectNet / Generated by ProjectNet: 08-12-2020 12:072Subsidieaanvraag_digitaal / Grant Application_digitaalDossier nummer / Dossier number: 80-86900-98-041DEFINITIEFdevelop a valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measure that provides information on communicative participation of people with communication disorders and integrate this item bank in patient specific goal setting in speech and language therapy. Both the item bank and the goal setting method will be adapted in cocreation with patients to enable access for people with communication difficulties.STUDY DESIGN Mixed methods research design following the MRC guidance for process evaluation of complex interventions, using PROMIS methodology including psychometric evaluation and an iterative user-centered design with qualitative co-creation methods to develop accessible items and the goal setting method.RESEARCH POPULATION Children, adolescents and adults with speech, language, hearing, and voice disorders.OUTCOME MEASURES An online patient-reported outcome measure on communicative participation, the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB), CPIB items that are accessible for people with language understanding difficulties, a communicative-participation person-specific goal setting method developed with speech and language therapists and patients and tested on usability and feasibility in clinical practice, and a course for SLTs explaining the use of the goal-setting method in their clinical reasoning process.RELEVANCE This study answers one of the prioritized questions in the call for SLTs to systematically and reliably incorporate the clients’ perspective in their daily practice to improve the quality of SLT services. At present patient reported outcomes play only a small role in speech and language therapy because 1) measures (PROMS) are often invalid, not implemented and unsuitable for clinical practice and 2) there is a knowledge gap in how to capture and interpret outcomes from persons with language disorders.
