Explicit Theory-Informed Clinical Reasoning Curriculum in a Hybrid Learning Physical Therapy Program.

Despite agreement among educators that clinical reasoning (CR) is an essential skill for health care professionals, use of explicit, theory-informed CR strategies and tools are lacking in Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) educational programs. The purpose of this commentary is to describe a four-step process whereby CR is implemented as an explicit curricular component in an accelerated, hybrid DPT program. Our process utilized four steps: 1) Identifying relevant literature and theories that informed our current understanding of CR, 2) Creating a programmatic definition of CR, 3) Delineating educational principles and curricular components that operationalize the teaching and assessment of CR, and 4) Developing the faculty to implement CR in the curriculum. A DPT program that explicitly implemented CR into its curriculum received state and regional approval, and Candidate for Accreditation status and admitted its first cohort in 2022. Programmatic outcomes will be reported in two years. The curriculum was purposefully constructed with the goal to make proficiency in CR a required outcome. Robust teaching, learning, and assessment strategies were developed to cultivate and make explicit the essential behaviors and skills of CR. Setting high expectations for adaptive learners will add to the culture that supports excellence in PT education.

The validity of the cervical rotation lateral flexion test in predicting benefit after manipulation treatment to the first and second rib.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. BACKGROUND: The cervical rotation lateral flexion (CRLF) test is frequently used in clinical practice to determine whether a thrust manipulation targeting the first rib should be performed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the predictive validity of the CRLF test and manual examination in determining whether patients with neck pain are likely to benefit from manipulative treatment to the first and second rib. METHODS: A physical examination incorporating the CRLF test was performed on 50 participants with neck pain followed by manipulation treatment to the first and second ribs. Clinical improvement was assessed immediately and one week after treatment. Participants who experienced at least a 30% improvement in their Neck Disability Index (NDI) score were considered "improved." Predictive validity was assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive likelihood ratios. RESULTS: Neither the CRLF test nor manual examination were predictive of clinical improvement after manipulative treatment to the first and second rib. However, being male, of older age, and exhibiting T1 and/or T2 restricted end-feel were associated with improved neck related-disability at one-week follow-up. CONCLUSION: The CRLF test does not appear to be helpful in determining whether patients with neck pain are likely to benefit from manipulative treatment to the first and second rib. Other factors from the history and clinical examination may be more helpful when selecting manipulative treatment including age and gender and possibly the presence of T1/T2 restricted end-feel.

Severity, Irritability, Nature, Stage, and Stability (SINSS): A clinical perspective.

Clinical reasoning errors in health-care can be mitigated with the use of systematic strategies and tools. One of these strategies is the SINSS construct, an acronym for Severity, Irritability, Nature, Stage, and Stability. The construct of SINSS appears in several textbooks and peer-reviewed articles. However, it has been inconsistently defined and applied in clinical practice. In this clinical perspective, the terms of the SINSS construct are defined in detail and their application to clinical practice is discussed. Current research showing the application of SINSS as a whole in clinical practice and educational settings is also presented. Recommendations for future application of SINSS are provided to advance the study of clinical reasoning and help minimize diagnostic, prognostic, and interventional clinical errors. The systematic use of SINSS allows the clinician to gain a thorough understanding of the patient's condition and symptoms, which can lead to a well-tolerated and appropriately tailored physical examination and intervention. Additionally, the proper use of this construct can result in more optimal patient outcomes, as well as provide a structure for the mentor and learner in helping uncover errors in the learner's clinical reasoning process.

Reliability and accuracy of an expert physical therapist as a reference standard for a manual therapy joint mobilization trial.

Objective: Previous studies on learning joint mobilization techniques have used expert practitioners as the reference standard as there is no current evidence on what ideal forces would be for effective mobilizations. However, none of these trials have documented the reliability or accuracy of the reference standard. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to report both the reliability and accuracy of an expert physical therapist (PT) acting as a reference standard for a manual therapy joint mobilization trial.Methods: A secondary analysis was performed using data from a published randomized, controlled, crossover study. The mobilization technique studied was the central posterior to anterior (PA) joint mobilization of the L3 vertebra. Reliability and accuracy data for the reference standard were collected over four time periods spanning 16 weeks.Results: Intrarater reliability of the expert PT for R1 and R2 joint forces was excellent (R1 Force ICC3,3 0.95, 95%CI 0.76-0.99 and R2 Force ICC3,3 0.90, 95%CI 0.49-0.99). Additionally, the expert PT was 92.3% accurate (mean % error±SD, 7.7 ± 5.5) when finding Grade III mean peak mobilization force and 85.1% accurate (mean % error±SD, 14.9 ± 8.3) when finding Grade IV mean peak mobilization force. Finally, correlations between actual applied forces and computed ideal forces were excellent (Pearson r 0.79-0.92, n = 24, P < 0.01 for all correlations).Discussion: The expert PT in this manual therapy joint mobilization trial showed excellent reliability and accuracy as the reference standard. The study supports the use of implementing quantitative feedback devices into the teaching of joint mobilization when a reliable and accurate reference standard has been identified.Level of Evidence: 2b.

Physical Therapy versus Glucocorticoid Injection for Osteoarthritis of the Knee.

BACKGROUND: Both physical therapy and intraarticular injections of glucocorticoids have been shown to confer clinical benefit with respect to osteoarthritis of the knee. Whether the short-term and long-term effectiveness for relieving pain and improving physical function differ between these two therapies is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial to compare physical therapy with glucocorticoid injection in the primary care setting in the U.S. Military Health System. Patients with osteoarthritis in one or both knees were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a glucocorticoid injection or to undergo physical therapy. The primary outcome was the total score on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 1 year (scores range from 0 to 240, with higher scores indicating worse pain, function, and stiffness). The secondary outcomes were the time needed to complete the Alternate Step Test, the time needed to complete the Timed Up and Go test, and the score on the Global Rating of Change scale, all assessed at 1 year. RESULTS: We enrolled 156 patients with a mean age of 56 years; 78 patients were assigned to each group. Baseline characteristics, including severity of pain and level of disability, were similar in the two groups. The mean (±SD) baseline WOMAC scores were 108.8±47.1 in the glucocorticoid injection group and 107.1±42.4 in the physical therapy group. At 1 year, the mean scores were 55.8±53.8 and 37.0±30.7, respectively (mean between-group difference, 18.8 points; 95% confidence interval, 5.0 to 32.6), a finding favoring physical therapy. Changes in secondary outcomes were in the same direction as those of the primary outcome. One patient fainted while receiving a glucocorticoid injection. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with osteoarthritis of the knee who underwent physical therapy had less pain and functional disability at 1 year than patients who received an intraarticular glucocorticoid injection. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01427153.).

The effect of real-time feedback on learning lumbar spine joint mobilization by entry-level doctor of physical therapy students: a randomized, controlled, crossover trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of real-time, objective feedback on learning lumbar spine joint mobilization techniques by entry-level Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students. METHODS: A randomized, controlled, crossover design was used. Twenty-four 1st Year DPT students were randomized into two groups. Group 1 (n = 12) practiced with the real-time feedback device first and then without it, while Group 2 (n = 12) practiced without the device first and then with it. Both practice periods with and without the device were 4 weeks long. Data were collected at Baseline, 5 weeks, 11 weeks, and 16 weeks. The crossover period was 5 weeks long, during which neither group practiced with or without the device. Eight force parameters were measured: R1 force; R2 force; Grade III and Grade IV mean peak force, frequency, and amplitude. RESULTS: When students practiced with the real-time feedback device, they more closely matched the reference standard for two outcomes: 1) the mean difference in R2 force between student and reference standard was better with device (38.0 ± 26.7 N) than without it (51.0 ± 38.5 N); P = .013; and 2) the mean difference in Grade III peak to peak amplitude force was also better with device (8.9 ± 9.3 N) than without it (11.8 ± 11.0); P = .026. All other force parameters improved when students practiced with the real-time feedback device, however, the differences between when they practiced without the device were not statistically significant. DISCUSSION: Real-time, objective feedback using a direct force measurement device improved learning for some aspects of lumbar spine joint mobilization by entry-level physical therapy students. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.

DRY NEEDLING IN THE MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS MEETING CLINICAL DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR SUBACROMIAL PAIN SYNDROME: A CASE SERIES.

BACKGROUND: Physical therapy interventions of exercise and manual therapy provide benefit in treatment of subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS). Dry needling is an emerging technique for treating musculoskeletal conditions; however, conflicting investigative evidence exists regarding the use of dry needling for SAPS. PURPOSE: The purpose of this case series was to describe the use of dry needling, in conjunction with exercise, as a management strategy for patients meeting clinical diagnostic criteria of SAPS and to observe the short- and intermediate-term effects of dry needling with therapeutic exercise in this population. A secondary purpose was to describe a framework of clinical reasoning to guide the pragmatic application of dry needling and exercise in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: Case series. METHODS: Twenty-five patients met criteria for SAPS and provided informed consent. Patients received examination-based dry needling for the first two visits with exercises added beginning at the third treatment session to help distinguish treatment effects. The primary outcome measure used in this study was the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (Q-DASH) survey assessed at their third clinical visit, at four-weeks after starting intervention and again at a three-month follow up visit. RESULTS: On the Q-DASH survey 21 of 24 patients reported improvement at the third visit (range 4.5 to 38.6 points) and 19 of 22 reported improvement at the 3-month follow-up (range 0.1-54.5 points) relative to baseline. Sixteen of 24 patients at the third visit and 19 of 22 patients at the 3-month follow-up reported Global Rating of Changes scores of +3 or greater. CONCLUSION: This case series provides insight to the observed short- and intermediate-term effects of dry needling combined with exercise for SAPS. Additionally, it discusses the framework of clinical reasoning when applying this intervention. The results are encouraging for dry needling as an adjunct to exercise for treating patients with SAPS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 4.

Differential Diagnosis in a Patient Presenting With Both Systemic and Neuromusculoskeletal Pathology: Resident's Case Problem.

Study Design Resident's case problem. Background Patients presenting with multiple symptomatic areas pose a diagnostic challenge for the physical therapist. Though musculoskeletal and nonmusculoskeletal symptoms typically present separately, they can occur simultaneously and mimic each other. Consequently, the ability to differentiate between musculoskeletal and nonmusculoskeletal symptoms is an important skill for physical therapists. The purpose of this resident's case problem was to describe the clinical-reasoning process leading to medical and physical therapy management of a patient presenting with upper and lower back pain, bilateral radiating arm and leg pain, and abdominal pain. Diagnosis The patient was a 30-year-old woman referred to physical therapy for upper and lower back pain. A detailed history and thorough examination revealed that the patient had signs and symptoms consistent with a possible abdominal aortic aneurysm. She was referred for medical management and was diagnosed with symptomatic cholelithiasis. She subsequently had a cholecystectomy, which ultimately resolved her abdominal pain and reduced her pain in other areas significantly. Although many of her symptoms resolved postoperatively, her pain in other areas remained and was potentially musculoskeletal in origin. Following re-evaluation and 3 physical therapy treatments over a 2-month period, she was relatively symptom free at discharge and had achieved all functional rehabilitation goals. Discussion This resident's case problem provides an opportunity to discuss the differential diagnosis, clinical reasoning, and outcome of a patient who presented with both systemic and neuromusculoskeletal pathology. Level of Evidence Differential diagnosis, level 5. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(6):496-503. Epub 6 Feb 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7652.

Systematic Clinical Reasoning in Physical Therapy (SCRIPT): Tool for the Purposeful Practice of Clinical Reasoning in Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapy.

Background and Purpose: Clinical reasoning is essential to physical therapist practice. Solid clinical reasoning processes may lead to greater understanding of the patient condition, early diagnostic hypothesis development, and well-tolerated examination and intervention strategies, as well as mitigate the risk of diagnostic error. However, the complex and often subconscious nature of clinical reasoning can impede the development of this skill. Protracted tools have been published to help guide self-reflection on clinical reasoning but might not be feasible in typical clinical settings. Case Description: This case illustrates how the Systematic Clinical Reasoning in Physical Therapy (SCRIPT) tool can be used to guide the clinical reasoning process and prompt a physical therapist to search the literature to answer a clinical question and facilitate formal mentorship sessions in postprofessional physical therapist training programs. Outcomes: The SCRIPT tool enabled the mentee to generate appropriate hypotheses, plan the examination, query the literature to answer a clinical question, establish a physical therapist diagnosis, and design an effective treatment plan. The SCRIPT tool also facilitated the mentee's clinical reasoning and provided the mentor insight into the mentee's clinical reasoning. The reliability and validity of the SCRIPT tool have not been formally studied. Discussion: Clinical mentorship is a cornerstone of postprofessional training programs and intended to develop advanced clinical reasoning skills. However, clinical reasoning is often subconscious and, therefore, a challenging skill to develop. The use of a tool such as the SCRIPT may facilitate developing clinical reasoning skills by providing a systematic approach to data gathering and making clinical judgments to bring clinical reasoning to the conscious level, facilitate self-reflection, and make a mentored physical therapist's thought processes explicit to his or her clinical mentor.

A multicenter randomised, 1-year comparative effectiveness, parallel-group trial protocol of a physical therapy approach compared to corticosteroid injection on pain and function related to knee osteoarthritis (PTA Trial)

INTRODUCTION: Corticosteroid injections (CSIs) are commonly used as an initial or a primary intervention for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Consistent evidence indicates CSIs offer symptom relief with conflicting reports regarding long-term efficacy. Physical therapy (PT) offers a non-invasive alternative. There is moderate evidence suggesting short-term and long-term symptom relief and functional improvement with PT interventions. Patients with knee OA are more commonly prescribed CSI than PT prior to total joint replacement. UnitedHealthcare and Military Health System data show substantially more total knee replacement patients receive preoperative CSI than PT. There are no studies comparing CSI to a PT approach in individuals with knee OA. The primary objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of CSI to PT in individuals with knee OA at 1, 2 and 12 months. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We plan to recruit 156 participants meeting established knee OA criteria. Following informed consent, participants will be randomised to receive either CSI or PT. All participants will receive instruction on recommended exercise and weight control strategies plus usual medical care. The CSI intervention consisting of 3 injections and the PT intervention consisting of 8-12 sessions will be spaced over 12 months. Measures of the dependent variables (DVs) will occur at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 6 months and 12 months post enrolment. This pragmatic, randomised clinical trial will be a mixed-model 2×5 factorial design. The independent variables are treatment (CSI and PT) and time with five levels from baseline to 1 year. The primary DV is the Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). We will also compare healthcare utilisation between the 2 groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the Madigan Army Medical Center Institutional Review Board. The authors intend to publish the results in a peer-reviewed source. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01427153.

Manual Physical Therapy Following Immobilization for Stable Ankle Fracture: A Case Series.

STUDY DESIGN: Case series. BACKGROUND: Ankle fractures commonly result in persistent pain, stiffness, and functional impairments. There is insufficient evidence to favor any particular rehabilitation approach after ankle fracture. The purpose of this case series was to describe an impairment-based manual physical therapy approach to treating patients with conservatively managed ankle fractures. CASE DESCRIPTION: Patients with stable ankle fractures postimmobilization were treated with manual physical therapy and exercise targeted at associated impairments in the lower limb. The primary outcome measure was the Lower Extremity Functional Scale. Secondary outcome measures included the ankle lunge test, numeric pain-rating scale, and global rating of change. Outcome measures were collected at baseline (performed within 7 days of immobilization removal) and at 4 and 12 weeks postbaseline. OUTCOMES: Eleven patients (mean age, 39.6 years; range, 18-64 years; 2 male), after ankle fracture-related immobilization (mean duration, 48 days; range, 21-75 days), were treated for an average of 6.6 sessions (range, 3-10 sessions) over a mean of 46.1 days (range, 13-81 days). Compared to baseline, statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements were observed in Lower Extremity Functional Scale score (P = .001; mean change, 21.9 points; 95% confidence interval: 10.4, 33.4) and in the ankle lunge test (P = .001; mean change, 7.8 cm; 95% confidence interval: 3.9, 11.7) at 4 weeks. These changes persisted at 12 weeks. DISCUSSION: Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in self-reported function and ankle range of motion were observed at 4 and 12 weeks following treatment with impairment-based manual physical therapy. All patients tolerated treatment well. Results suggest that this approach may have efficacy in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 4.

Development of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients with neck pain likely to benefit from cervical traction and exercise.

The objective of the study was to develop a clinical prediction rule (CPR) to identify patients with neck pain likely to improve with cervical traction. The study design included prospective cohort of patients with neck pain referred to physical therapy. Development of a CPR will assist clinicians in classifying patients with neck pain likely to benefit from cervical traction. Eighty patients with neck pain received a standardized examination and then completed six sessions of intermittent cervical traction and cervical strengthening exercises twice weekly for 3 weeks. Patient outcome was classified at the end of treatment, based on perceived recovery according to the global rating of change. Patients who achieved a change > or =+6 ("A great deal better" or "A very great deal better") were classified as having a successful outcome. Univariate analyses (t tests and chi-square) were conducted on historical and physical examination items to determine potential predictors of successful outcome. Variables with a significance level of P < or = 0.15 were retained as potential prediction variables. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were then calculated for all variables with a significant relationship with the reference criterion of successful outcome. Potential predictor variables were entered into a step-wise logistic regression model to determine the most accurate set of clinical examination items for prediction of treatment success. Sixty-eight patients (38 female) were included in data analysis of which 30 had a successful outcome. A CPR with five variables was identified: (1) patient reported peripheralization with lower cervical spine (C4-7) mobility testing; (2) positive shoulder abduction test; (3) age > or =55; (4) positive upper limb tension test A; and (5) positive neck distraction test. Having at least three out of five predictors present resulted in a +LR equal to 4.81 (95% CI = 2.17-11.4), increasing the likelihood of success with cervical traction from 44 to 79.2%. If at least four out of five variables were present, the +LR was equal to 23.1 (2.5-227.9), increasing the post-test probability of having improvement with cervical traction to 94.8%. This preliminary CPR provides the ability to a priori identify patients with neck pain likely to experience a dramatic response with cervical traction and exercise. Before the rule can be implemented in routine clinical practice, future studies are necessary to validate the rule. The CPR developed in this study may improve clinical decision-making by assisting clinicians in identifying patients with neck pain likely to benefit from cervical traction and exercise.

Benefits of a musculoskeletal screening examination for initial entry training soldiers.

Soldiers reporting for Individual Entry Training from basic training posts frequently arrive unable to initiate or complete training due to musculoskeletal injuries. Therefore, a screening examination was developed to identify musculoskeletal injuries and provide appropriate medical intervention as needed. During a consecutive 5-week period, 1013 soldiers reported for training to Fort Lee, Virginia. Of these, 105 (10.4%) reported for medical screening because they stated that they had an injury or could not pass a physical fitness test. After screening, 76 (72%) were found to have physical restrictions that would limit their ability to fully participate in training. The injured soldiers were referred for and received medical intervention. Of the total number of soldiers screened, 97 (92%) were able to complete their training, pass a physical fitness test, and graduate on time. This study documents the use and benefits of a brief musculoskeletal screening examination for individual entry training soldiers.