Development, Implementation, and Use of a Process to Promote Knowledge Translation in Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the use and effect of the Battery of Rehabilitation Assessments and Interventions on evidence-based practice (EBP) over 6 years. DESIGN: Successive independent samples study. SETTING: Large rehabilitation system. PARTICIPANTS: Successive samples of allied health clinicians (N=372) in 2009 (n=136), 2012 (n=115), and 2015 (n=121). INTERVENTIONS: The Battery of Rehabilitation Assessments and Interventions includes 2 components: (1) a process to synthesize, adapt, and make recommendations about the application of evidence; and (2) a process to implement the recommended practices in 3 levels of care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To assess the effect of the project, surveys on EBP perspectives, use, and barriers were conducted before Battery of Rehabilitation Assessments and Interventions implementation and 3 and 6 years after implementation. Questions about effect of the project on clinical practice were included 3 and 6 years postimplementation. RESULTS: Survey data indicate the Battery of Rehabilitation Assessments and Interventions resulted in a significant increase in use of EBPs to make clinical decisions and justify care. As a result of the project, survey participants reported a substantial increase in use of outcome measures in 2012 (74%) and 2015 (91%) and evidence-based interventions in 2012 (62%) and 2015 (82%). In 2012, significant differences (P≤.01) in effect of the Battery of Rehabilitation Assessments and Interventions on practice were identified between therapists who were directly involved in the project and Interventions compared with uninvolved therapists. In 2015, no significant differences existed between involved and uninvolved therapists. CONCLUSIONS: After 6 years of sustained implementation efforts, the Battery of Rehabilitation Assessments and Interventions expedited the adoption of EBPs throughout a large system of care in rehabilitation.

Validation of a pain mechanism classification system (PMCS) in physical therapy practice.

The objective of this study was to validate the clinical application of a pain mechanism classification system (PMCS) in clinical practice. We analyzed data abstracted from the medical records of patients who were treated in the outpatient clinics of a large urban rehabilitation hospital in Chicago. We hypothesized that there would be good agreement between the PMCS determined by trained therapists and the PMCS category assigned based on a computer-generated statistical model using patients' signs and symptoms. Using cluster analysis, when we assumed five groups, 97% of patients could be classified. Sensitivity and specificity results with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the categories using the physical therapist assigned categories (PMCS) as the criterion standard. Sensitivity for four of the five categories (inflammatory, ischemia, peripheral neurogenic, and other ranged from 72·0 to 83·1%). For the central mechanism, sensitivity was much lower at 15%. Specificity for the five categories ranged from 72·4% (ischemia) to 98·8% (central). This study provides empirical support for recent findings in the literature that the peripheral components of a PMCS can be implemented consistently in an outpatient pain clinical practice.