Eine theoriegeleitete Implementierung von Messinstrumenten in der physiotherapeutischen Versorgung einer Stroke Unit

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund Der Einsatz von Messinstrumenten objektiviert und unterstützt die klinische Entscheidungsfindung von Physiotherapierenden bei Planung, Durchführung und Evaluation einer Therapie. Die dadurch erhaltenen Informationen ermöglichen eine patientenzentrierte Versorgung und haben das Potential, die interprofessionelle Kommunikation zu verbessern. Trotz der genannten Vorteile findet die Nutzung von Messinstrumenten im klinischen Alltag bislang keine ausreichende Anwendung.

Ziel Systematische Implementierung von Messinstrumenten in die physiotherapeutische Versorgung der Stroke Unit des Universitätsklinikums Münster mithilfe des „Implementation of Change Model“. Zudem wird evaluiert, ob durch eine Anwendung des Modells eine gesteigerte Nutzung der Messinstrumente festgestellt werden kann.

Methode Zur Implementierung von Messinstrumenten wurde das Implementation of Change Model schrittweise mit diversen Methoden umgesetzt. Zur Ergebnisevaluation wurden quantitative (Fragebogenerhebung) und qualitative Forschungsmethoden (Fokusgruppendiskussion) angewandt.

Ergebnisse Nach Abschluss der Erprobungsphase, Auswertung der Dokumentation, der Befragungen sowie einer Diskussion zeigte sich, dass durch Anwendung des Implementation of Change Models die Nutzung von Messinstrumenten bei Patient*innen mit Schlaganfall gesteigert werden konnte. Aus Sicht der Befragten nahm die Überzeugung über den klinischen Nutzen von Messinstrumenten zu. Es konnte auch eine subjektive Verbesserung der Qualität der Behandlung festgestellt werden.

Schlussfolgerung Das Implementation of Change Model eignet sich zur systematischen Anwendung durch eine Gruppe von Physiotherapierenden in der Akutversorgung, wodurch sich die Nutzung von Messinstrumenten bei Patient*innen mit Schlaganfall steigerte. Es wird empfohlen, weitere Erkenntnisse mit einer größeren Gruppe von Therapierenden und in anderen Versorgungsbereichen durchzuführen.

Abstract

Background The use of outcome measurement objectifies and supports the clinical reasoning of physiotherapists in planning, implementation and evaluation of therapy. The information that physical therapists gather enable a patient-centred care approach and have the potential to improve the interprofessional communication. Despite the advantages mentioned above, the use of measurement instruments is not being sufficiently applied in everyday clinical practice.

Aim Systematic implementation of outcome measurements in the physiotherapeutic care of the Stroke Unit of the University Hospital Münster by using the “Implementation of Change Model”. Furthermore, it will be evaluated whether an increased use of the outcome measurements can be determined by application of the model.

Method For the implementation of measurement instruments, the Implementation of Change Model was implemented step by step by different methodological approaches. Both quantitative (questionnaire survey) and qualitative research methods (focus group discussion) were used to evaluate the results.

Results After completion of the project, evaluation of the documentation, conduction of surveys and a discussion round, it can be said that by applying the Implementation of Change Model the use of measurement instruments with stroke patients can be increased. From the participants point of view the certainty about the clinical use of application of outcome measurements was expanded. A subjective improvement of the quality of the therapy was noticed.

Conclusion The Implementation of Change Model is suitable for systematic application in a group of physiotherapists in acute care and to increase the use of measurement instruments. It is recommended, to conduct further research with larger groups of physiotherapists and in different health care settings.

Schlüsselwörter

Implementation Science - Messinstrumente - Schlaganfall

Key words

implementation science - outcome measurement - stroke

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 09. Januar 2022

Angenommen: 25. Mai 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
21. Juli 2022

• Literatur

• 1 Sackett DL, Rosenberg WC, Muir Gray JA. et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996; 71-72 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71.
• 2 Haigh R, Tennant A, Biering-Sörensen F. et al. The Use of Outcome Measures in physical medicine and rehabilitation within Europe. J Rehabil Med 2001; 273-278 DOI: 10.1080/165019701753236464.
• 3 Käll I, Larsson ME, Bernhardsson S. Use of outcome measures improved after a tailored implementation in primary care physiotherapy: a prospective, controlled study: Implementing outcome measures in physiotherapy. J Eval Clin Pract 2016; 22: 668-676 DOI: 10.1111/jep.12513.
• 4 Braun T, Rieckmann A, Weber F. et al. Current use of measurement instruments by physiotherapists working in Germany: a cross-sectional online survey. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18: 810 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3563-2.
• 5 Verheyden G, Meyer S. ‘To Measure is to Know.’ Advancing the Use of Outcome Measures in the Physiotherapy Profession: To measure is to know. Physiother Res Int 2016; 21: 1-3 DOI: 10.1002/pri.1662.
• 6 Bauer MS, Kirchner J. Implementation science. What is it and why should I care?. Psychiatry Res 2020; 283: 112376 DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.04.025.
• 7 Stokes EK, O’Neill D. Use of Outcome Measures in Physiotherapy Practice in Ireland from 1998 to 2003 and Comparison to Canadian Trends. Physiother Can 2008; 60: 109-116 DOI: 10.3138/physio.60.2.109.
• 8 Swinkels RA, van Peppen RP, Wittink H. et al. Current use and barriers and facilitators for implementation of standardised measures in physical therapy in the Netherlands. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011; 12: 106 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-106.
• 9 Bauer MS, Damschroder L, Hagedorn H. et al. An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychol 2015; 3: 32 DOI: 10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9.
• 10 Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to Implementation Science. Implement Sci 2006; 1: 1 DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.
• 11 Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009; 374: 86-89 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9.
• 12 Mosteller F. Innovation and Evaluation. Science 1981; 211: 881-886 DOI: 10.1126/science.6781066.
• 13 Balas EA, Boren SA. Managing Clinical Knowledge for Health Care Improvement. Yearb Med Inform 2000; 09: 65-70 DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1637943.
• 14 Grant J, Green L, Mason B. Basic research and health: a reassessment of the scientific basis for the support of biomedical science. Res Eval 2003; 12: 217-224 DOI: 10.3152/147154403781776618.
• 15 Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med 2011; 104: 510-520 DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180.
• 16 Scurlock-Evans L, Upton P, Upton D. Evidence-Based Practice in physiotherapy: a systematic review of barriers, enablers and interventions. Physiotherapy 2014; 100: 208-219 DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2014.03.001.
• 17 Lynch EA, Chesworth BM, Connell LA. Implementation – The Missing Link in the Research Translation Pipeline: Is It Any Wonder No One Ever Implements Evidence-Based Practice?. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2018; 32: 751-761 DOI: 10.1177/1545968318777844.
• 18 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Stroke rehabilitation in adults. Clinical guideline [CG162] Published 12 June 2013.. Im Internet (Stand 07.06.2022): www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg162
• 19 Grol R, Wensing M. Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care. 3. Ed.. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2020
• 20 Green LW, Kreuter MW. Health promotion planning: an educational and environmental approach. 2. Aufl.. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Pub. Co.; 1991
• 21 Ovretveit J. A team quality improvement sequence for complex problems. Qual Saf Health Care 1999; 8: 239-246 DOI: 10.1136/qshc.8.4.239.
• 22 Dickinson E. Using marketing principles for healthcare development. Qual Saf Health Care 1995; 4: 40-44 DOI: 10.1136/qshc.4.1.40.
• 23 Kotler P, Roberto EL. Social Marketing: strategies for changing public behavior. 1. Aufl.. New York: Free Press; 1989
• 24 Schädler S, Kool J, Lüthi H. et al., Hrsg. Assessments in der Rehabilitation: Neurologie. 4. Aufl.. Bern: Hogrefe; 2020
• 25 Thomas S, Scheffler B, Elsner B. et al. Testverfahren in der neurologischen Physio- und Ergotherapie. neuroreha 2016; 08: 76-85 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-105775.
• 26 Collin C, Wade D. Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1990; 53: 576-579 DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.53.7.576.
• 27 Braun T, Schulz R-J, Hoffmann M. et al. Deutsche Version des De Morton Mobility Index: Erste klinische Ergebnisse aus dem Prozess der interkulturellen Adaptation. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2015; 48: 154-163 DOI: 10.1007/s00391-014-0648-3.
• 28 Heck G, Steiger-Bächle G, Schmidt T. Early Functional Abilities (EFA) – A scale for the evaluation of clinical changes in the early stage of neurological rehabilitation. Neurol Rehabil 2000; 6: 125-133
• 29 Bernhardsson S, Larsson ME, Eggertsen R. et al. Evaluation of a tailored, multi-component intervention for implementation of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in primary care physical therapy: a non-randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14: 105 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-105.
• 30 Murphy M, Björkdahl A, Forsberg-Wärleby G. et al. Implementation of evidence-based assessment of upper extremity in stroke rehabilitation: From evidence to clinical practice. J Rehabil Med 2021; 53: jrm00148 DOI: 10.2340/16501977-2790.
• 31 Verbeek JM, van Wegen EEH, van Peppen RPS. et al KNGF Guideline Stroke. Amersfoort: Koninklijk Nederlands Genootschap voor Fysiotherapie (KNGF); 2014
• 32 Moore JL, Potter K, Blankshain K. et al. A Core Set of Outcome Measures for Adults With Neurologic Conditions Undergoing Rehabilitation: A Clinical Practice Guideline. J Neurol Phys Ther 2018; 42: 174-220 DOI: 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000229.