Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Korean version of rehabilitation complexity scale for the measurement of complex rehabilitation needs.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Rehabilitation Complexity Scale-Extended version 13 (RCS-E v13) to develop the Korean version of the Rehabilitation Complexity Scale (KRCS), and to explore its reliability, and concurrent and construct validity.This research was an observational study of a series of consecutive rehabilitation inpatients who were previously assessed with KRCS and grouped with the Korean rehabilitation patient group version 1.1 (KRPG v1.1). Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the RCS-E v13 were implemented according to internationally recognized standards. Four hundred thirty inpatients diagnosed with complex neurological or musculoskeletal disabilities were enrolled. Physiatrists were asked to finish the KRCS at admission and to complete a second time with an interval of a minimum of 3 weeks to a maximum of 4 weeks for reliability evaluation. At discharge, the KRCS was completed a third time to explore constructive validity.The Cronbach-α was 0.63. The intraclass correlation coefficient values of the total score, Medical, Nursing, Care, Therapy Disciplines, Therapy Intensity, and Especial Needs domains were 0.86, 0.69, 0.84, 0.83, 0.74, 0.74, and 0.79, respectively (P < .01). The scale was repeatable (Spearman rho 0.69-0.86) and correlated strongly with disability measures (Spearman rho 0.37-0.50). Exploratory factor analysis revealed 2 clear factors ("Medical/Nursing" and "Care/Therapy Disciplines/Therapy Intensity/Equipment"). The goodness-of-fit index in the confirmatory factor analysis was 0.87. The KRCS was associated with a higher explanatory power for rehabilitation resources and length of stay than the KRPG v1.1.Our data suggest that the KRCS is a feasible, reliable, and valid tool that is appropriate for the measurement of clinical complexity in Korean intensive rehabilitation units. Further, it may provide case-mix adjustment to improve the rehabilitation delivery system in Korea.

Online questionnaire, clinical and biomechanical measurements for outcome prediction of plantar heel pain: feasibility for a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Plantar heel pain (PHP) accounts for 11-15% of foot symptoms requiring professional care in adults. Recovery is variable, with no robust prognostic guides for sufferers, clinicians or researchers. Therefore, we aimed to determine the validity, reliability and feasibility of questionnaire, clinical and biomechanical measures selected to generate a prognostic model in a subsequent cohort study. METHODS: Thirty-six people (19 females & 17 males; 20-63 years) were recruited with equal numbers in each of three groups: people with PHP (PwPHP), other foot pain (PwOP) and healthy (H) controls. Eighteen people performed a questionnaire battery twice in a randomised order to determine online and face-to-face agreement. The remaining 18 completed the online questionnaire once, plus clinical measurements including strength and range of motion, mid-foot mobility, palpation and ultrasound assessment of plantar fascia. Nine of the same people underwent biomechanical assessment in the form of a graded loaded challenge augmenting walking with added external weight and amended step length on two occasions. Outcome measures were (1) feasibility of the data collection procedure, measurement time and other feedback; (2) establishing equivalence to usual procedures for the questionnaire battery; known-group validity for clinical and imaging measures; and initial validation and reliability of biomechanical measures. RESULTS: There were no systematic differences between online and face-to-face administration of questionnaires (p-values all > .05) nor an administration order effect (d = - 0.31-0.25). Questionnaire reliability was good or excellent (ICC2,1_absolute)(ICC 0.86-0.99), except for two subscales. Full completion of the survey took 29 ± 14 min. Clinically, PwPHP had significantly less ankle-dorsiflexion and hip internal-rotation compared to healthy controls [mean (±SD) for PwPHP-PwOP-H = 14°(±6)-18°(±8)-28°(±10); 43°(±4)- 45°(±9)-57°(±12) respectively; p < .02 for both]. Plantar fascia thickness was significantly higher in PwPHP (3.6(0.4) mm vs 2.9(0.4) mm, p = .01) than the other groups. The graded loading challenge demonstrated progressively increasing ground reaction forces. CONCLUSION: Online questionnaire administration was valid therefore facilitating large cohort recruitment and being relevant to remote service evaluation and research. The physical and ultrasound examination revealed the expected differences between groups, while the graded loaded challenge progressively increases load and warrants future research. Clinician and researchers can be confident about these methodological approaches and the cohort study, from which useful clinical tools should result, is feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Quantity and Quality of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clerkships in US Medical Schools.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to address two underreported issues in undergraduate physical medicine and rehabilitation medical education: quantity and quality of physical medicine and rehabilitation clerkships in US medical schools. DESIGN: A multimethod sequential design was used to evaluate the curricula of US medical schools. Quantity (N = 154) of physical medicine and rehabilitation clerkships was assessed by counting the number of required, selective, and elective clerkships in each medical school. Quality (n = 13) was assessed by conducting a thematic analysis on physical medicine and rehabilitation clerkship curricula to identify learning objectives. These objectives were then compared with learning objectives in a model standard. RESULTS: Whereas few medical schools required a physical medicine and rehabilitation clerkship, most offered elective rotations in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Most medical schools only included 6 of the 12 model standard learning objectives. Medical schools also included 29 learning objectives not present in the model standard. CONCLUSIONS: Physical medicine and rehabilitation clerkships are not underrepresented but are underemphasized, in undergraduate medical schools. Furthermore, these clerkships use inconsistent learning objectives. Thus, findings suggest the need to draw attention to physical medicine and rehabilitation clerkships by offering them as selectives and to develop a list of standardized learning objectives. This exploratory study developed such a groundbreaking list and invites the physical medicine and rehabilitation community to test it.

Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Individuals With Amputation: Identification of Best Evidence for Rehabilitation to Develop the WHO's Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVES: To report the results of the systematic search performed to identify interventions and related evidence for rehabilitation of individuals with amputation based on the current evidence from clinical practice guidelines (CPG). DATA SOURCES: Pubmed, Pedro, CINAHL, Embase, Google Scholar, and multiple guideline databases (date restriction, 2008-2018). STUDY SELECTION: Exclusion criteria were no CPG, not reporting on rehabilitation, published before 2008, developed for health conditions other than amputation, presence of conflict of interest (financial or nonfinancial), lack of information on the strength of the recommendation, and lack of quality assessed by the "Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation." DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was done using a standardized form, which comprised information on the recommendation, the strength of recommendation and the quality of the evidence used to inform the recommendation. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 4 guidelines, providing a total of 217 recommendations (20 on assessments, 131 on interventions, and 66 on service provision). Most recommendations concerned pain management, education, pre- and postoperative management, and residual limb care. The strength of recommendation was generally weak to intermediate. The level of evidence mostly compromised expert opinions, with only 6.9% (15 of 217) being provided by randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The field of amputation is well covered for recommended interventions, but the level of evidence is generally low and is based mostly on expert opinion. Some important domains are not covered (eg, vocation and education, sexual and/or intimate relationships, activities of daily living or leisure activities, education concerning socket/liner fitting). There is also a lack of description of the contents of training and rehabilitation programs. This should be taken into account for the development of future guidelines.

Beyond a Hashtag: Strategies to Move Toward a More Inclusive Physiatry Workforce.

ABSTRACT: The field of physical medicine and rehabilitation should strive for a physician workforce that is ethnically/racially, sex, and ability diverse. Considering the recent realities of disparities in health outcomes related to COVID-19 and in racial injustice in the United States, we are called to be champions for antiracism and equity. The specialty of physical medicine and rehabilitation should be the leaders in fostering a culture of inclusion and pay special attention to the population of applicants who are underrepresented in medicine. The specialty needs tools to start addressing these disparities. This article aims to provide strategic and intentional evidence-based recommendations for programs to follow. Holistic review, implicit bias training, structured interviews, and targeted outreach for those underrepresented in medicine are some of the tools that will help students enter and become successful in our specialty. Furthermore, this article provides novel guidance and considerations for virtual interviews during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Assessing Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residency Education Using the Neurological Assessment Competency Evaluation System.

ABSTRACT: Competent neurologic examination and clinical skills are essential components in the care for patients in acute hospital and rehabilitation settings. To enhance the evaluation and education of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation residents, the authors developed an educational objective structured clinical examination, the Neurological Exam Assessment Competency Evaluation System, and gathered 2 yrs of baseline data. The Neurological Exam Assessment Competency Evaluation System consisted of nine 9-min examination stations, seven with written clinical scenario with instructions for junior residents to complete the appropriate examination (stations: Altered Mental Status, Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, Dementia, Stroke, Falls, and the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury Sensory and Motor Examinations). Examinees provided written responses to posed questions for the other two stations-Modified Ashworth Scale and brachial plexus. The assessment tools for this examination were designed for residency programs to evaluate the basic competencies as outlined by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation milestones. Based on the feedback received from the examinees and examiners, the Neurological Exam Assessment Competency Evaluation System can serve as an educational objective structured clinical examination for the improvement of trainee core competencies.

Expert Panel Survey to Update the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Definition of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: As part of an initiative led by the Brain Injury Special Interest Group Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM) to update the 1993 ACRM definition of mild TBI, the present study aimed to characterize current expert opinion on diagnostic considerations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional web-based survey. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: An international, interdisciplinary group of clinician-scientists (N=31) with expertise in mild TBI completed the survey by invitation between May and July 2019 (100% completion rate). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratings of agreement with statements related to the diagnosis of mild TBI and ratings of the importance of various clinical signs, symptoms, test findings, and contextual factors for increasing the likelihood that the individual sustained a mild TBI, on a scale ranging from 1 ("not at all important") to 10 ("extremely important"). RESULTS: Men (n=25; 81%) and Americans (n=21; 68%) were over-represented in the sample. The survey revealed areas of expert agreement (eg, acute symptoms are diagnostically useful) and disagreement (eg, whether mild TBI with abnormal structural neuroimaging should be considered the same diagnostic entity as "concussion"). Observable signs were generally rated as more diagnostically important than subjective symptoms (Wilcoxon signed ranks test, Z=3.77; P<.001; r=0.68). Diagnostic importance ratings for individual symptoms varied widely, with some common postconcussion symptoms (eg, fatigue) rated as unhelpful (<75% of respondents indicated at least 5 out of 10 importance). Certain acute test findings (eg, cognitive and balance impairments) and contextual factors (eg, absence of confounds) were consistently rated as highly important for increasing the likelihood of a mild TBI diagnosis (≥75% of respondents indicated at least 7 out of 10). CONCLUSIONS: The expert survey findings identified several potential revisions to consider when updating the ACRM mild TBI definition, including preferentially weighing observable signs in a probabilistic framework, incorporating symptoms and test findings, and adding differential diagnosis considerations.

Criteria to Evaluate the Quality of Outcome Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of Rehabilitation Interventions.

ABSTRACT: No standardized guideline for the reporting of outcomes measures in randomized controlled trials of rehabilitation interventions is currently available. This study includes four phases to identify, synthesize, and make recommendations for potential attributes of reporting criteria of outcome measures in rehabilitation randomized controlled trials. First, we surveyed the author instructions for rehabilitation journals to determine how journals require authors to report outcomes. Second, we reviewed all consolidated standards of reporting trials extensions to determine how other speciality groups require reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Third, we conducted a focused scoping review to examine the nature and variations of criteria used to evaluate the quality of outcome measures in randomized controlled trials. Finally, we synthesized the information from phases 1-3 and propose four criteria specific to the reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials of rehabilitation interventions: (1) clearly describe the construct to be measured as outcome(s); (2) justify the selection of outcome measures by mapping to World Health Organization International Classification of Function, Disability, and Health (International Classification of Functioning) framework; justify the psychometric properties (relevance, validity, reliability) of the selected measurement tool; (3) clearly describe the timing of outcome measurement, with consideration of the health condition, the course of disease, and hypothesized effect of intervention; and (4) complete and unselective reporting of outcome data.

The Structure of Research Questions in Randomized Controlled Trials in the Rehabilitation Field: A Methodological Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess whether and how the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes) format is described to frame research questions in randomized controlled trials looking at effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions. DESIGN: A methodological study was conducted. Randomized controlled trials in the rehabilitation field, published between July 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019, were included. The framing of the primary research question from each trial was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 97 randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. The most frequent framing of the primary research question was as an "objective" statement (55%), and in 33% of the articles, this was stated as an "objective" together with a "hypothesis" description. All PICO elements were present in 55% of research questions, but only 49% have used the statement suggested by Cochrane. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that a specific item about the "research question" and the rationale that drove the proposed design following the form suggested by Cochrane should be included in the RCT Rehabilitation Checklist.

Recommendations for Reporting on Rehabilitation Interventions.

ABSTRACT: Clear reporting on rehabilitation treatments is critical for interpreting and replicating study results and for translating treatment research into clinical practice. This article reports the recommendations of a working group on improved reporting on rehabilitation treatments. These recommendations are intended to be combined with the efforts of other working groups, through a consensus process, to arrive at a reporting guideline for randomized controlled trials in physical medicine and rehabilitation (Randomized Controlled Trials Rehabilitation Checklist). The work group conducted a scoping review of 156 diverse guidelines for randomized controlled trial reporting, to identify themes that might be usefully applied to the field of rehabilitation. Themes were developed by identifying content that might improve or enhance existing items from the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. Guidelines addressing broad research domains tended to define reporting items generally, from the investigator's perspective of relevance, whereas those addressing more circumscribed domains provided more specific and operationalized items. Rehabilitation is a diverse field, but a clear description of the treatment's separable components, along with distinct treatment theories for each, can improve reporting of relevant information. Over time, expert consensus groups should develop more specific guideline extensions for circumscribed research domains, around coalescing bodies of treatment theory.

Development and Validation of the WHO Rehabilitation Competency Framework: A Mixed Methods Study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the competencies, behaviors, activities, and tasks required by the rehabilitation workforce, and their core values and beliefs, and to validate these among rehabilitation professionals and service users. DESIGN: Mixed methods study, involving a content analysis of rehabilitation-related competency frameworks, a modified Delphi study, and a consultation-based questionnaire of service users. SETTING: Desk-based research. PARTICIPANTS: Participants who completed the first (N=77; 47%) and second (N=68; 67%) iterations of the modified Delphi study. Thirty-seven individuals participated in the service user consultation. Collectively, the participants of the mixed methods study represented a significant range of rehabilitation professions from a broad range of countries, as well as both high- and low-income settings. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Not applicable. RESULTS: The mixed methods study resulted in the inclusion of 4 core values, 4 core beliefs, 17 competencies, 56 behaviors, 20 activities, and 62 tasks in the Rehabilitation Competency Framework. The content analysis of rehabilitation-related competency frameworks produced an alpha list of competencies, behaviors, activities and tasks ("statements"), which were categorized into 5 domains. The final iteration of the modified Delphi study revealed an average of 95% agreement with the statements, whereas the service user consultation indicated an average of 87% agreement with the statements included in the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the diverse composition of the rehabilitation workforce, this mixed methods study demonstrated that a strong consensus on competencies and behaviors that are shared across professions, specializations, and settings, and for activities and tasks that collectively capture the scope of rehabilitation practice. The development of the Rehabilitation Competency Framework is a pivotal step toward the twin goals of building workforce capability to improve quality of care and strengthening a common rehabilitation workforce identity that will bolster its visibility and influence at a systems-level.

What Determines the Quality of Rehabilitation Clinical Practice Guidelines?: An Overview Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine what factors determine the quality of rehabilitation clinical practice guidelines. DESIGN: Six databases were searched for articles that had applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II quality assessment tool to rehabilitation clinical practice guidelines. The 573 deduplicated abstracts were independently screened by two authors, resulting in 81 articles, the full texts of which were independently screened by two authors for Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II application to rehabilitation clinical practice guidelines, resulting in a final selection of 40 reviews appraising 504 clinical practice guidelines. Data were extracted from these by one author and checked by a second. Data on each clinical practice guideline included the six Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II domain scores, as well as the two Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II global evaluations. RESULTS: All six Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II domain scores were statistically significant predictors of overall clinical practice guideline quality rating; D3 (rigor of development) was the strongest and D1 (scope and purpose) the weakest (overall model P < 0.001, R2 = 0.53). Five of the six domain scores were significant predictors of the clinical practice guideline use recommendation, with D3 the strongest predictor and D5 (applicability) the weakest (overall model P < 0.001, pseudo R2 = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Quality of rehabilitation clinical practice guidelines may be improved by addressing key domains such as rigor of development.

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residency Quality Improvement and Research Curriculum: Design and Implementation.

ABSTRACT: Physical medicine and rehabilitation residency programs do not demonstrate a uniform level of training and mentorship for resident scholarly activities related in part to variable utilization of standardized curricula. The aim of this study was to design, develop, implement, and evaluate a structured Quality Improvement and Research Curriculum for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency program in academic year 2015 using standardized methodology. A combination of five-phase project-lifecycle and six-step medical-curriculum development methodologies was used to integrate existing resources into five institutional domains: (1) Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Program; (2) Research Mentorship Program; (3) Rehab in Review; (4) Publication and Presentation Resources, and (5) Research and QI Lecture Series. Dedicated resident-faculty teams were created for individual domains and for the overall curriculum. Written materials developed included scope documents, reporting forms, and tracking tables. A dedicated webpage on the department website served as an accessible resource. A bimonthly Updates newsletter highlighted ongoing resident achievements. Program and resident outcome metrics were evaluated at the mid and end of academic year 2015. Excellent resident and good faculty participation in the curriculum was observed. Resident publication and presentation productivity improved. Time was the biggest barrier to success. Key factors for success included phased implementation, dedicated teams, scope clarity, accessible resources, personnel support, resident champions, and faculty mentorship.

Influence of Sex and Age on Ratings of Confidence and Relevance in Continuing Certification Longitudinal Assessment: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: Longitudinal assessments use spaced repetition of items to facilitate learning. Algorithms selecting repetition items can prioritize various properties for future presentation. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the relationship between participant ratings of item-specific confidence and/or practice relevance and participant age, sex, and response correctness. DESIGN: This is a prospective quality improvement study of 403 American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation diplomates with time-limited certificates. Participants answered 20 items quarterly over four quarters, rating each item on its relevance to their practice and their confidence in their response. RESULTS: The relationship between sex and ratings of response confidence was significant, with women less likely than men to be confident in their responses, regardless of correctness. Younger physicians were significantly more confident in their responses and rated items as more practice relevant. CONCLUSIONS: Women physicians were less confident than men in their item-specific confidence ratings, regardless of correctness, on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation continuing certification longitudinal knowledge assessment. Older physicians were less confident in their responses than younger physicians. The findings supported the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation prioritization of response correctness and practice relevance, rather than response confidence, to select items for spaced repetition in American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation's continuing certification longitudinal assessment.

Managing the Rehabilitation Wave: Rehabilitation Services for COVID-19 Survivors.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on the provision of medical care. As the curve progresses and patients are discharged, the rehabilitation wave brings a high number of postacute COVID-19 patients suffering from physical, mental, and cognitive impairments threatening their return to normal life. The complexity and severity of disease in patients recovering from severe COVID-19 infection require an approach that is implemented as early in the recovery phase as possible, in a concerted and systematic way. To address the rehabilitation wave, we describe a spectrum of interventions that start in the intensive care unit and continue through all the appropriate levels of care. This approach requires organized rehabilitation teams including physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, rehabilitation psychologists or neuropsychologists, and physiatrists collaborating with acute medical teams. Here, we also discuss administrative factors that influence the provision of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The services that can be provided are described in detail to allow the reader to understand what services may be appropriate locally. We have been learning and adapting real time during this crisis and hope that sharing our experience facilitates the work of others as the pandemic evolves. It is our goal to help reduce the potentially long-lasting challenges faced by COVID-19 survivors.

What Now for Rehabilitation Specialists? Coronavirus Disease 2019 Questions and Answers.

Recognizing a need for more guidance on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, members of the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Editorial Board invited several clinicians with early experience managing the disease to collaborate on a document to help guide rehabilitation clinicians in the community. This consensus document is written in a "question and answer" format and contains information on the following items: common manifestations of the disease; rehabilitation recommendations in the acute hospital setting, recommendations for inpatient rehabilitation and special considerations. These suggestions are intended for use by rehabilitation clinicians in the inpatient setting caring for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. The text represents the authors' best judgment at the time it was written. However, our knowledge of COVID-19 is growing rapidly. The reader should take advantage of the most up-to-date information when making clinical decisions.