3.8 Article

Evaluating two implementation strategies for whiplash guidelines in physiotherapy: A cluster-randomised trial

期刊

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
卷 52, 期 3, 页码 165-174

出版社

AUSTRALIAN PHYSIOTHERAPY ASSOC
DOI: 10.1016/S0004-9514(06)70025-3

关键词

health plan implementation; practice guidelines; whiplash injuries

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Question Are implementation strategies involving education any more effective than mere dissemination of clinical practice guidelines in changing physiotherapy practice and reducing patient disability after acute whiplash? Design Cluster-randomised trial. Participants Twenty-seven physiotherapists from different private physiotherapy clinics and the 103 patients (4 dropouts) who presented to them with acute whiplash. Intervention The implementation group of physiotherapists underwent education by opinion leaders about whiplash guidelines and the dissemination group had the guidelines mailed to them. Outcome measures The primary outcome was patient disability, measured using the Functional Rating Index, collected on admission to the trial and at 1.5, 3, 6 and 12 months. Physiotherapist knowledge about the guidelines was measured using a custom-made questionnaire. Physiotherapist practice and cost of care were measured by audit of patient notes. Results There were no significant differences between groups for any of the patient outcomes at any time. The implementation patients had 0.6 points (95% CI -7.8 to 6.6) less disability than the dissemination patients at 12 months; 44% more physiotherapists in the implementation group reported that they prescribed two out of the five guideline-recommended treatments; and 32% more physiotherapists actually prescribed them. The cost of care for patients in the implementation group was $255 (95% CI -1505 to 996) less than for patients in the dissemination group. Conclusion Although the active implementation program increased guideline-consistent practice, patient outcomes and cost of care were not affected.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据