Rushton A, White L, Heap A, Calvert M, Heneghan N, Goodwin P
School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Department of Physiotherapy, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Birmingham, UK.
BMJ Open. 2016 Feb 25;6(2):e009409. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009409.
To develop an optimised 1:1 physiotherapy intervention that reflects best practice, with flexibility to tailor management to individual patients, thereby ensuring patient-centred practice.
Mixed-methods combining evidence synthesis, expert review and focus groups.
Secondary care involving 5 UK specialist spinal centres.
A purposive panel of clinical experts from the 5 spinal centres, comprising spinal surgeons, inpatient and outpatient physiotherapists, provided expert review of the draft intervention. Purposive samples of patients (n=10) and physiotherapists (n=10) (inpatient/outpatient physiotherapists managing patients with lumbar discectomy) were invited to participate in the focus groups at 1 spinal centre.
A draft intervention developed from 2 systematic reviews; a survey of current practice and research related to stratified care was circulated to the panel of clinical experts. Lead physiotherapists collaborated with physiotherapy and surgeon colleagues to provide feedback that informed the intervention presented at 2 focus groups investigating acceptability to patients and physiotherapists. The focus groups were facilitated by an experienced facilitator, recorded in written and tape-recorded forms by an observer. Tape recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data analysis, conducted by 2 independent researchers, employed an iterative and constant comparative process of (1) initial descriptive coding to identify categories and subsequent themes, and (2) deeper, interpretive coding and thematic analysis enabling concepts to emerge and overarching pattern codes to be identified.
The intervention reflected best available evidence and provided flexibility to ensure patient-centred care. The intervention comprised up to 8 sessions of 1:1 physiotherapy over 8 weeks, starting 4 weeks postsurgery. The intervention was acceptable to patients and physiotherapists.
A rigorous process informed an optimised 1:1 physiotherapy intervention post-lumbar discectomy that reflects best practice. The developed intervention was agreed on by the 5 spinal centres for implementation in a randomised controlled trial to evaluate its effectiveness.
制定一种优化的一对一物理治疗干预方案,该方案应体现最佳实践,并具有根据个体患者情况灵活调整管理方式的能力,从而确保以患者为中心的治疗实践。
采用混合方法,结合证据综合、专家评审和焦点小组讨论。
涉及英国5个专科脊柱中心的二级医疗服务。
来自5个脊柱中心的目标性临床专家小组,包括脊柱外科医生、住院和门诊物理治疗师,对干预草案进行专家评审。邀请了目标性患者样本(n = 10)和物理治疗师样本(n = 10)(管理腰椎间盘切除术患者的住院/门诊物理治疗师)参加1个脊柱中心的焦点小组讨论。
从2项系统评价中制定干预草案;向临床专家小组分发了一份关于分层护理的当前实践和研究的调查问卷。首席物理治疗师与物理治疗师和外科医生同事合作,提供反馈意见,这些反馈意见为在2个焦点小组中提出的干预方案提供了参考,这2个焦点小组分别调查患者和物理治疗师对该方案的可接受性。焦点小组由一位经验丰富的主持人主持,由一名观察员以书面和录音形式记录。录音逐字转录。由2名独立研究人员进行数据分析,采用迭代和持续比较的过程:(1)初始描述性编码以识别类别和后续主题,(2)更深入的解释性编码和主题分析,以使概念浮现并识别总体模式代码。
该干预方案反映了现有最佳证据,并提供了灵活性以确保以患者为中心的护理。该干预方案包括在术后4周开始的8周内进行多达8次一对一物理治疗。该干预方案为患者和物理治疗师所接受。
一个严谨的过程产生了一种优化的腰椎间盘切除术后一对一物理治疗干预方案,该方案体现了最佳实践。5个脊柱中心已就所制定的干预方案达成一致,将在一项随机对照试验中实施以评估其有效性。