RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Over 80% of people who experience a stroke present with residual impairment of the upper extremity, such as the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand. However, rarely do stroke rehabilitation practitioners (e.g., occupational therapists) use standardized outcome measures to objectively evaluate upper extremity function. Accordingly, the purpose of this project was to develop a bundle of implementation strategies that supports practitioners' adoption of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity in stroke rehabilitation practice. METHODS: We used tenets of Implementation Mapping to guide the development of our implementation strategy bundle. We partnered with one, large academic health system serving over 200 stroke patients annually through intensive rehabilitation care. Strategies were selected and developed through a multi-method process that included a review of the literature, qualitative input from our health system's practitioners and managers, and expert consultation. We also specified the hypothesized implementation "mechanisms" our strategies intended to change. Practitioners' adoption (yes/no) of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment was calculated by analyzing electronic health record documentation of the 6-month time frame before strategies were deployed compared to the 6-month time frame after deployment. RESULTS: Practitioners were exposed to the following implementation strategies to support Fugl-Meyer adoption: conduct educational meetings, prepare outcome measure champions, provide equipment, develop training materials, and adapt documentation systems. In the 6-months before deployment of our implementation strategies, practitioners implemented the Fugl-Meyer with 14.8% of stroke patients. In the six months after deployment, adoption of the Fugl-Meyer increased to 73.8% (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: When systematically developed in collaboration with health system partners, a bundle of implementation strategies may support outcome measure adoption in stroke rehabilitation. Improving the use of standardized outcome measures is of paramount importance in stroke rehabilitation to objectively monitor patients' progress or decline, to demonstrate the value of rehabilitation services for enhancing patients' recovery, and to advocate for continued reimbursement for rehabilitation care. Future opportunities lie in further specifying the mechanisms through which implementation strategies are intended to work and how those mechanisms contribute to strategy effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT registration: NCT04888416; May 06, 2021.
RESUMO
As neurorehabilitation research continues to grow, the field must ensure its scientific discoveries are implemented into routine clinical care. Without targeted efforts to increase the implementation of evidence into practice, patients may never see the benefits of interventions, assessments, and technologies developed in the confines of empirical studies. This article serves as a response to Lynch et al's 2018 Point of View piece in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair that underscored the urgent need for implementation studies to expedite the application of neurorehabilitation evidence in practice. To address this need, we provide the following 4 considerations investigators should contemplate when designing their own studies at the intersection of implementation and neurorehabilitation research: (a) consideration of guiding theories, models, and frameworks, (b) consideration of implementation strategies, (c) considerations of target outcomes, and (d) consideration of hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs. To conclude, we also provide a study exemplar to depict how these considerations can be integrated into the neurorehabilitation research field to narrow the evidence-to-practice gap.