Use of the knowledge to action model improved physical therapist adherence to a common clinical practice guideline across multiple settings: a multisite case series
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: When a new guideline is published there is a need to understand how its recommendations can best be implemented in real-world practice. Yet, guidelines are often published with little to no roadmap for organizations to follow to promote adherence to their recommendations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of using a common process model to implement a single clinical practice guideline across multiple physical therapy clinical settings. METHODS: Five organizationally distinct sites with physical therapy services for patients with peripheral vestibular hypofunction participated. The Knowledge to Action model served as the foundation for implementation of a newly published guideline. Site leaders conducted preliminary gap surveys and face-to-face meetings to guide physical therapist stakeholders' identification of target-behaviors for improved guideline adherence. A 6-month multimodal implementation intervention included local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, fatigue-resistant reminders, and communities of practice. Therapist adherence to target-behaviors for the 6 months before and after the intervention was the primary outcome for behavior change. RESULTS: Therapist participants at all sites indicated readiness for change and commitment to the project. Four sites with more experienced therapists selected similar target behaviors while the fifth, with more inexperienced therapists, identified different goals. Adherence to target behaviors was mixed. Among four sites with similar target behaviors, three had multiple areas of statistically significantly improved adherence and one site had limited improvement. Success was most common with behaviors related to documentation and offering patients low technology resources to support home exercise. A fifth site showed a trend toward improved therapist self-efficacy and therapist behavior change in one provider location. CONCLUSIONS: The Knowledge to Action model provided a common process model for sites with diverse structures and needs to implement a guideline in practice. Multimodal, active interventions, with a focus on auditing adherence to therapist-selected target behaviors, feedback in collaborative monthly meetings, fatigue-resistant reminders, and developing communities of practice was associated with long-term improvement in adherence. Local rather than external opinion leaders, therapist availability for community building meetings, and rate of provider turnover likely impacted success in this model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study does not report the results of a health care intervention on human participants.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».