Article type
Year
Abstract
Introduction: Stroke Therapy Evaluation Programme (STEP) has the broad objective of encouraging the implementation of evidence-based stroke rehabilitation. To make this relevant to rehabilitation professionals we wished to seek their views on review priorities.
Objectives: To explore the views of a range of health care professionals on what their clinical problems or questions were and to determine the extent to which the health care practitioners agreed on the level of interest in these issues.
Methods: We first invited health care professionals in stroke rehabilitation throughout Scotland to attend a workshop. After initial presentations on evidence-based practice the participants (n=105) worked in small focus groups to identify and discuss clinical problems and questions. The information from these groups was used to generate questions that were incorporated within a questionnaire, which was supplemented by questions from national guidelines Additional questions were derived from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidelines on stroke rehabilitation. Following piloting, the questionnaire was sent to the original workshop participants who rated the questions (on a sliding scale from 1 to 5) according to their level of interest in each of the burning questions for review.
Results: 86(82%) of the questionnaires were completed and returned. Forty-nine questions were identified which fell into three broad categories: service organisation and delivery, specific interventions and management of complications of stroke. Of all respondents, 66% said it was very important to know if a seven day week approach to rehabilitation input effected additional improvement in the stroke patient. 60% said it was very important to know the relative benefits of different treatment approaches. 58% said it was very important to know how long rehabilitation input should be to promote optimal recovery and 58% said it was very important to know what is the most effective way to manage spasticity. Major variations were found between the responses of different professional disciplines.
Discussion: Health care professionals working in stroke rehabilitation have many 'burning questions' relating to different aspects of service provision and clinical care. For these health care professionals, implementation of evidence-based stroke rehabilitation is dependent on the availability and accessibility of reliable and quality information to answer these burning questions. This will inform our agenda for future systematic reviews.
Objectives: To explore the views of a range of health care professionals on what their clinical problems or questions were and to determine the extent to which the health care practitioners agreed on the level of interest in these issues.
Methods: We first invited health care professionals in stroke rehabilitation throughout Scotland to attend a workshop. After initial presentations on evidence-based practice the participants (n=105) worked in small focus groups to identify and discuss clinical problems and questions. The information from these groups was used to generate questions that were incorporated within a questionnaire, which was supplemented by questions from national guidelines Additional questions were derived from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidelines on stroke rehabilitation. Following piloting, the questionnaire was sent to the original workshop participants who rated the questions (on a sliding scale from 1 to 5) according to their level of interest in each of the burning questions for review.
Results: 86(82%) of the questionnaires were completed and returned. Forty-nine questions were identified which fell into three broad categories: service organisation and delivery, specific interventions and management of complications of stroke. Of all respondents, 66% said it was very important to know if a seven day week approach to rehabilitation input effected additional improvement in the stroke patient. 60% said it was very important to know the relative benefits of different treatment approaches. 58% said it was very important to know how long rehabilitation input should be to promote optimal recovery and 58% said it was very important to know what is the most effective way to manage spasticity. Major variations were found between the responses of different professional disciplines.
Discussion: Health care professionals working in stroke rehabilitation have many 'burning questions' relating to different aspects of service provision and clinical care. For these health care professionals, implementation of evidence-based stroke rehabilitation is dependent on the availability and accessibility of reliable and quality information to answer these burning questions. This will inform our agenda for future systematic reviews.