RESUMO
Objective: We set out to create a Family Medicine EHR (electronic health record) embedded exercise application. This was done to evaluate the utility of the exercise app for providers and to understand the usefulness of the exercise app from the perspective of patients. Methods: This exercise application was developed through an iterative process with repeated pre-testing and feedback from an interprofessional team and embedded into the EHR at an academic family medicine clinic. Anecdotal feedback from patients was used to inform pre-testing adaptations. Results: The application required six iterations prior to clinical utility. It had several features that clinicians and patients felt were beneficial. These features involved a customizable exercise directory with pre-made templated plans which could be further modified. To overcome accessibility barriers, the application was developed to include digital and printable copies with an integrated direct email option for ease of remote sharing with patients. Conclusion: A customizable, open-source exercise application was developed to facilitate provider exercise prescription and support patient self-management. This project may be useful for other providers interested in developing similar programs to address musculoskeletal conditions in their patients. Next steps are to undertake pilot testing of the app with broader provider and patient feedback.
Objectif: Concevoir une application d'exercices intégrés au DES (dossier de santé électronique) de la médecine familiale. Cela visait à évaluer l'utilité de l'application d'exercices pour les prestataires et à en comprendre l'utilité du point de vue des patients. Méthodologie: Cette application d'exercices a été élaborée au moyen d'un processus itératif mettant en oeuvre une mise à l'essai répétée et une rétroaction d'une équipe interprofessionnelle et intégrée dans le DES d'une clinique universitaire de médecine familiale. Une rétroaction secondaire de patients a contribué aux adaptations de mise à l'essai. Résultats: L'application a dû être répétée six fois avant l'utilité clinique. Selon les cliniciens et les patients, plusieurs fonctions ont présenté un avantage. Il s'agissait notamment d'un répertoire d'exercices personnalisable assorti de modèles de plans préconçus et modifiables par la suite. Afin de surmonter les obstacles d'accessibilité, l'application était conçue pour comprendre des versions numériques et imprimables dotées d'une option de courriel direct intégré pour faciliter le partage à distance avec les patients. Conclusion: Une application d'exercices personnalisable et ouverte visait à faciliter la prescription d'exercices par les prestataires et à soutenir le traitement autonome des patients. Ce projet peut être utile à d'autres prestataires souhaitant élaborer des programmes semblables pour traiter les problèmes musculosquelettiques de leurs patients. Les étapes suivantes consistent à entreprendre des mises à l'essai de l'application avec un retour d'information plus large de la part des prestataires et des patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Evidence to develop best rehabilitation practices after Arthroscopic Bankart Repair (ABR) is lacking, leading to heterogeneity in rehabilitation approaches. OBJECTIVES: This systematic scoping review investigated current evidence for rehabilitation and associated outcomes following ABR, including rehabilitation parameters, evaluative approaches (outcomes/outcome measures, follow-up timing/duration). DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was performed of CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Embase databases in May 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies detailing rehabilitation protocols following ABR reporting at least one postoperative assessment within 1 year of surgery (to measure impact of rehabilitation) were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two blinded reviewers independently selected studies using standardized criteria and extracted study characteristics and outcomes of interest. Quality of evidence was assessed using Joanna Brigg's quality assessment tool. A narrative analysis was conducted and evidence gaps were identified. RESULTS: Nine studies evaluating 11 rehabilitation protocols with a total of 384 participants were included. Considerable variability was seen in rehabilitation protocols and evaluation parameters. Return to sports/activity was frequently measured, but not well-defined. Strengthening was an important component of rehabilitation protocols, but rarely reported as an outcome. Follow-up was variable, with 4 studies ending follow-up before 24-months postoperatively. Overall, patient outcomes improved postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of evidence investigating the impact of rehabilitation approaches following ABR. Although patient outcomes improve after ABR, selected outcomes/measures are highly variable with limited evidence on those important to measure rehabilitation success, particularly strength and return to activity. Identified evidence gaps should be addressed in future research.
