Development of an intervention to manage knee osteoarthritis risk and symptoms following anterior cruciate ligament injury.

INTRODUCTION: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is a risk factor for developing knee osteoarthritis (OA). We developed an intervention to support people manage risk factors for OA. METHODS: We conducted one-on-one interviews with 20 individuals with OA symptoms 6-15 years post ACL injury and used a nominal group process during a workshop with 40 patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) to elicit information on the intervention content and delivery characteristics (timing, HCPs, and methods). Interview data were analyzed using content analysis. Nominal group ideas with importance ratings ≥5 of 7 met criteria for inclusion. Results were integrated, considering similarities and differences. RESULTS: Eight content categories were identified: 1. understanding knee injury and expectations about recovery; 2. understanding OA risk; 3. understanding OA signs and symptoms; 4. managing OA risk; 5. managing knee OA symptoms; 6. information for influencers; 7. credible sources; and, 8. updates on new evidence and treatments. Delivery timing reflected a lifespan approach from time of injury through symptomatic knee OA management. Although multiple media for delivery were identified, introductory face-to-face discussions and opportunity for re-accessing HCPs were critical. All HCPs who treat people with ACL should be familiar with and able to deliver the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This co-development approach identified that an intervention to support people with ACL injury to limit and manage knee OA requires content embedded within an easily accessible, multi-media delivery model with capacity for check-back with HCPs that is appealing to different age groups and personal preferences over the lifespan post injury.

Stroke survivors' experiences of team support along their recovery continuum.

BACKGROUND: A coordinated stroke rehabilitation care team is considered optimal for supporting stroke survivors from diagnosis to recovery. Despite this recognition, many stroke survivors cannot access essential rehabilitation services. Furthermore, there is a lack of understanding of stroke patients' and their caregivers' rehabilitation needs and wishes. We sought to gain insight into healthcare and social structures from the perspective of patients and caregivers that can better support long-term stroke recovery. METHODS: We conducted individual interviews with 24 participants comprised of stroke survivors, spousal caregivers, stroke support group coordinators, and speech pathologist. Participants were recruited through three stroke survivor support groups. An empowerment lens was integrated into data analysis and data interpretation. RESULTS: Two dominant themes captured participants' experiences through stroke survivors' trajectory of care. 1) Experiences of managing stroke. This theme identified stroke survivors and spousal caregivers' experiences with stroke recovery, rehabilitation, and fulfilling unmet needs. 2) Resources of support. This theme described the social and financial support structures drawn upon to assist with stroke rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted a lack of teamwork between stroke survivors, spousal caregivers, and health professionals. This fragmented care was compounded by inequities in rehabilitation programs and health services resulting in what appeared to be a disempowering rehabilitation process. Although stroke recovery groups were a significant source of support for stroke survivors and spousal caregivers, participants perceived they were overlooked, by stroke recovery healthcare providers, as a site for stroke recovery healthcare services. An empowerment approach to stroke rehabilitation involves collaboration between stroke survivors, caregivers, healthcare providers, health services, and existing community stroke support structures. Framing stroke based care through an empowerment lens may serve to address stroke rehabilitation inadequacies and inequities.

Frontline learning of medical teaching: "you pick up as you go through work and practice".

BACKGROUND: Few medical teachers have received formal teaching education. Along with individual and organizational barriers to participation in teacher training programs, increasing numbers and altered distribution of physicians away from major teaching centers have increased the difficulty of attendance. Furthermore, it is not known if traditional faculty development formats are the optimal learning options given findings from existing studies document both positive and negative outcomes. There is a gap in research that explores how medical teachers learn to teach and also limited research regarding how medical teachers actually teach. The purpose of this study was to provide insight into how physicians describe their teaching of trainees, and the nature of their teaching development and improvement to inform faculty development programs. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 36 physicians, with a broad range of teaching experience, purposefully selected from five disciplines: Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, Psychiatry, Surgery, and Family Medicine. A qualitative, inductive approach was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Teaching was described as being centered on the needs of individual trainees, but was dependent on patient presentation and environmental context. For this group of physicians learning to teach was perceived as a dynamic and evolving process influenced by multiple life experiences. The physicians had not learnt to teach through formal education and then put that learning into practice, but had learnt to teach and improve their teaching through their trial and errors teaching. Life experiences unconnected with the medical environment contributed to their knowledge of teaching along with limited formal learning to teach experiences. Teaching practice was influenced by peers and trainees, feedback, and observation. The findings suggest these medical teachers learn to teach along a continuum largely through their teaching practice. CONCLUSION: The findings suggested that the participants' major resource for learning how to teach was informal experiential learning, both in and out of the workplace. This may have implications for faculty development strategies for medical teaching education.