Professionalism and Safety of DPT Students in First, Full-Time Clinical Experiences: Accelerated Hybrid versus Traditional Programs.

PURPOSE: Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) education continues to progress with contemporary content and innovative teaching methods. The purpose of this study was to examine clinical assessment data from the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT-CPI) focused on professionalism and safety in an initial clinical experience between an accelerated-hybrid and traditional DPT program. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on mid-term and final Safety, Professional Behavior, and Communication PT-CPI scores of each program's first clinical experience. The traditional program served as a control group. A total 186 students were examined: 100 from the traditional program and 86 from the accelerated-hybrid program. RESULTS: There was a significant effect of learning environment on final test scores while controlling for midterm scores in Safety (p < 0.001), Professional Behavior (p < 0.001), and Communication (p < 0.001) with students in the accelerated-hybrid program scoring higher. Each program showed improvements from midterm to final PT-CPI, outperforming the set benchmark score with the accelerated-hybrid program showing larger growth in Communication and Safety. CONCLUSION: Students in both DPT programs display acceptable levels of professionalism and safety according to program benchmarks and demonstrate growth in these areas throughout the clinical experiences despite differences in program design.

Patient-reported outcome measures in physical therapy practice for neck pain: an overview of reviews.

BACKGROUND: Understanding which patient-reported outcome measures are being collected and utilized in clinical practice and research for patients with neck pain will help to inform recommendations for a core set of measures that provide value to patients and clinicians during diagnosis, clinical decision-making, goal setting and evaluation of responsiveness to treatment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a review of systematic reviews using a qualitative synthesis on the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients presenting with neck pain to physical therapy. METHODS: An electronic search of systematic reviews and guideline publications was performed using MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), and Web of Science (Clarivate) databases to identify reviews that evaluated physical therapy interventions or interventions commonly performed by a physical therapist for individuals with neck pain and included at least one patient-reported outcome measure. The frequency and variability in which the outcome measures were reported among the studies in the review and the constructs for which they measured were evaluated. The evaluation of a core set of outcome measures was assessed. Risk of bias and quality assessment was performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2. RESULTS: Of the initial 7,003 articles, a total of 37 studies were included in the final review. Thirty-one PROMs were represented within the 37 reviews with eleven patient-reported outcome measures in three or more reviews. The eleven PROMs assessed the constructs of disability, pain intensity, psychosocial factors and quality of life. The greatest variability was found amongst individual measures assessing psychosocial factors. Assessment of psychosocial factors was the least represented construct in the included studies. Overall, the most frequently utilized patient reported outcome measures were the Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale. The most frequently used measures evaluating the constructs of disability, pain intensity, quality of life and psychosocial functioning included the Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, Short-Form-36 health survey and Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire respectively. Overall risk of bias and quality assessment confidence levels ranged from critically low (2 studies), low (12 studies), moderate (8 studies), and high (15 studies). CONCLUSION: This study identified a core set of patient-reported outcome measures that represented the constructs of disability, pain intensity and quality of life. This review recommends the collection and use of the Neck Disability Index and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analog Scale. Recommendation for a QoL measure needs to be considered in the context of available resources and administrative burden. Further research is needed to confidently recommend a QoL and psychosocial measure for patients presenting with neck pain. Other measures that were not included in this review but should be further evaluated for patients with neck pain are the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical function, PROMIS Pain Interference and the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) tool.