Lucylynn Lizarondo

A systematic review of the individual determinants of research evidence use in allied health

Background: The use of evidence-based practice (EBP) is often not reflected in allied health (AH) practitioners’ day-to-day practice (the research-practice gap). Research suggests that considerable differences between and within AH disciplines exist, which require different approaches in order to influence practice behavior. It is therefore important to develop a better understanding of what influences individual AH practitioners’ adoption of evidence into daily practice. Objective: This systematic review aims to examine the individual characteristics of AH practitioners which determine their uptake of evidence into practice. Methods: Studies which examined individual factors or variables that influence research evidence use by any AH practitioner were included in the review. The methodological quality of the included papers was assessed using the Quality Assessment and Validity Tool for Cross-sectional Studies. A narrative summary of the findings was presented. Results: Six studies were included and the methodological quality scores indicated that two were weak and the remainder had moderate–weak quality. The review demonstrated that factors such as educational degree or academic qualification, involvement in research or EBP-related activities, and practitioners’ perceptions, attitudes and beliefs about research and EBP are significant predictors of self-reported research evidence use in AH. The effect of other factors such as professional characteristics, clinical setting/work environment, information-seeking behavior and sociodemographic variables are less clear. Whether there is an interaction effect between evidence-uptake factors has not been tested. Conclusion: Improving the research knowledge of clinicians and overcoming negative attitudes toward EBP have the potential to move AH practitioners towards regularly utilizing evidence in practice. Allied health practitioners may benefit from participation in regular educational opportunities such as case studies or journal clubs which can put them at the same level of thinking and awareness of research evidence. Future research should aim to review organizational and contextual factors and explore their interaction with individual determinants of research evidence use.

Allied health assistants and what they do: A systematic review of the literature.

Objective: Allied health assistants (AHAs) are an emerging group in allied health practice with the potential to improve quality of care and safety of patients. This systematic review summarizes the evidence regarding the roles and responsibilities of AHAs and describes the benefits and barriers to utilizing AHAs in current health care settings. Methods: A systematic process of literature searching was undertaken. A search strategy which included a range of electronic databases was searched using key terms. Studies which examined the roles and responsibilities of AHAs (across all allied health disciplines) were included in the review. Only publications written in the English language were considered, with no restriction on publication date. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility of the articles. Data extraction was performed by the same reviewers. A narrative summary of findings was presented. Results: Of the initial 415 papers, 10 studies were included in the review. The majority of papers reported roles performed by general health care assistants or rehabilitation assistants who work in multiple settings or are not specifically affiliated to a health discipline. All current AHAs duties have elements of direct patient care and indirect support via clerical and administrative or housekeeping tasks. Benefits from the introduction of the AHA role in health care include improved clinical outcomes, increased patient satisfaction, higher-level services, and more “free” time for allied health professionals to concentrate on patients with complex needs. Barriers to the use of AHAs are related to blurred role boundaries, which raises issues associated with professional status and security. Conclusions: There is consensus in the literature that AHAs make a valuable contribution to allied health care. Whilst there are clear advantages associated with the use of AHAs to support allied health service delivery, ongoing barriers to their effective use persist.

Efficient clinical evaluation of guideline quality: development and testing of a new tool

BackgroundEvaluating the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines is essential before deciding which ones which could best inform policy or practice. One current method of evaluating clinical guideline quality is the research-focused AGREE II instrument. This uses 23 questions scored 1–7, arranged in six domains, which requires at least two independent testers, and uses a formulaic weighted domain scoring system. Following feedback from time-poor clinicians, policy-makers and managers that this instrument did not suit clinical need, we developed and tested a simpler, shorter, binary scored instrument (the iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist) designed for single users.MethodsContent and construct validity, inter-tester reliability and clinical utility were tested by comparing the new iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist with the AGREE II instrument. Firstly the questions and domains in both instruments were compared. Six randomly-selected guidelines on a similar theme were then assessed by three independent testers with different experience in guideline quality assessment, using both instruments. Per guideline, weighted domain and total AGREE II scores were calculated, using the scoring rubric for three testers. Total iCAHE scores were calculated per guideline, per tester. The linear relationship between iCAHE and AGREE II scores was assessed using Pearson r correlation coefficients. Score differences between testers were assessed for the iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist.ResultsThere were congruent questions in each instrument in four domains (Scope & Purpose, Stakeholder involvement, Underlying evidence/Rigour, Clarity). The iCAHE and AGREE II scores were moderate to strongly correlated for the six guidelines. There was generally good agreement between testers for iCAHE scores, irrespective of their experience. The iCAHE instrument was preferred by all testers, and took significantly less time to administer than the AGREE II instrument. However, the use of only three testers and six guidelines compromised study power, rendering this research as pilot investigations of the psychometric properties of the iCAHE instrument.ConclusionThe iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist has promising psychometric properties and clinical utility.

An evidence-based framework to measure quality of allied health care

BackgroundThere is no standard way of describing the complexities of allied health (AH) care, or its quality. AH is an umbrella term which excludes medicine and nursing, and variably includes disciplines which provide therapy, diagnostic, or scientific services. This paper outlines a framework for a standard approach to evaluate the quality of AH therapy services.MethodsA realist synthesis framework describing what AH does, how it does it, and what is achieved, was developed. This was populated by the findings of a systematic review of literature published since 1980 reporting concepts of quality relevant to AH. Articles were included on quality measurement concepts, theories, debates, and/or hypothetical frameworks.ResultsOf 139 included articles, 21 reported on descriptions of quality potentially relevant to AH. From these, 24 measures of quality were identified, with 15 potentially relating to what AH does, 17 to how AH delivers care, 8 relating to short term functional outcomes, and 9 relating to longer term functional and health system outcomes.ConclusionsA novel evidence-based quality framework was proposed to address the complexity of AH therapies. This should assist in better evaluation of AH processes and outcomes, costs, and evidence-based engagement of AH providers in healthcare teams.

Assisting allied health in performance evaluation: a systematic review

BackgroundPerformance evaluation raises several challenges to allied health practitioners and there is no agreed approach to measuring or monitoring allied health service performance. The aim of this review was to examine the literature on performance evaluation in healthcare to assist in the establishment of a framework that can guide the measurement and evaluation of allied health clinical service performance. This review determined the core elements of a performance evaluation system, tools for evaluating performance, and barriers to the implementation of performance evaluation.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was undertaken. Five electronic databases were used to search for relevant articles: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Academic Search Premier. Articles which focussed on any allied health performance evaluation or those which examined performance in health care in general were considered in the review. Content analysis was used to synthesise the findings from individual articles.ResultsA total of 37 articles were included in the review. The literature suggests there are core elements involved in performance evaluation which include prioritising clinical areas for measurement, setting goals, selecting performance measures, identifying sources of feedback, undertaking performance measurement, and reporting the results to relevant stakeholders. The literature describes performance evaluation as multi-dimensional, requiring information or data from more than one perspective to provide a rich assessment of performance. A range of tools or instruments are available to capture various perspectives and gather a comprehensive picture of health care quality.ConclusionsEvery allied health care delivery system has different performance needs and will therefore require different approaches. However, there are core processes that can be used as a framework to evaluate allied health performance. A careful examination of barriers to performance evaluation and subsequent tailoring of strategies to overcome these barriers should be undertaken to achieve the aims of performance evaluation. The findings of this review should inform the development of a standardised framework that can be used to measure and evaluate allied health performance. Future research should explore the utility and overall impact of such framework in allied health service delivery.

Factors influencing the perceived quality of clinical supervision of occupational therapists in a large Australian state

BACKGROUND/AIM Clinical supervision is important for effective health service delivery, professional development and practice. Despite its importance there is a lack of evidence regarding the factors that improve its quality. This study aimed to investigate the factors that influence the quality of clinical supervision of occupational therapists employed in a large public sector health service covering mental health, paediatrics, adult physical and other practice areas. METHODS A mixed method, sequential explanatory study design was used consisting of two phases. This article reports the quantitative phase (Phase One) which involved administration of the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS-26) to 207 occupational therapists. RESULTS Frequency of supervision sessions, choice of supervisor and the type of supervision were found to be the predictor variables with a positive and significant influence on the quality of clinical supervision. Factors such as age, length of supervision and the area of practice were found to be the predictor variables with a negative and significant influence on the quality of clinical supervision. CONCLUSION Factors that influence the perceived quality of clinical supervision among occupational therapists have been identified. High quality clinical supervision is an important component of clinical governance and has been shown to be beneficial to practitioners, patients and the organisation. Information on factors that make clinical supervision effective identified in this study can be added to existing supervision training and practices to improve the quality of clinical supervision.

Enablers of and barriers to high quality clinical supervision among occupational therapists across Queensland in Australia: findings from a qualitative study

BackgroundHealth professionals practising in countries with dispersed populations such as Australia rely on clinical supervision for professional support. While there are directives and guidelines in place to govern clinical supervision, little is known about how it is actually conducted and what makes it effective. The purpose of this study was to explore the enablers of and barriers to high quality clinical supervision among occupational therapists across Queensland in Australia.MethodsThis qualitative study took place as part of a broader project. Individual, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with occupational therapy supervisees in Queensland. The interviews explored the enablers of and barriers to high quality clinical supervision in this group. They further explored some findings from the initial quantitative study.ResultsContent analysis of the interview data resulted in eight themes. These themes were broadly around the importance of the supervisory relationship, the impact of clinical supervision and the enablers of and barriers to high quality clinical supervision.DiscussionThis study identified a number of factors that were perceived to be associated with high quality clinical supervision. Supervisor-supervisee matching and fit, supervisory relationship and availability of supervisor for support in between clinical supervision sessions appeared to be associated with perceptions of higher quality of clinical supervision received. Some face-to-face contact augmented with telesupervision was found to improve perceptions of the quality of clinical supervision received via telephone. Lastly, dual roles where clinical supervision and line management were provided by the same person were not considered desirable by supervisees. A number of enablers of and barriers to high quality clinical supervision were also identified.ConclusionWith clinical supervision gaining increasing prominence as part of organisational and professional governance, this study provides important lessons for successful and sustainable clinical supervision in practice contexts.

Fluid regimens for colostomy irrigation: a systematic review.

Background  Various techniques for managing faecal evacuation have been proposed; however, colostomy irrigation is favoured as it leads to better patient outcomes. Alternative fluid regimens for colostomy irrigation have been suggested to achieve effective evacuation. Aim  The objective of this review was to summarise the best available evidence on the most effective fluid regimen for colostomy irrigation. Search strategy  Trials were identified by electronic searches of CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, Current Contents, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE. Unpublished articles and references lists from included studies were also searched. Selection criteria  Randomised controlled trials and before-and-after studies investigating any fluid regimen for colostomy irrigation were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes measured included fluid inflow time, total wash-out time, haemodynamic changes during irrigation, cramps, leakage episodes, quality of life and level of satisfaction. Data collection and analysis  Trial selection, quality appraisal and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers. Differences in opinion were resolved by discussion. Main results  The systematic literature search strategy identified two cross-over trials that compared water with another fluid regimen. Owing to the differences in irrigating solutions used, the results were not pooled for analysis. Both the polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution and glyceryl trinitrate performed significantly better than water. Conclusion  There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of fluid regimens other than water, such as polyethylene glycol electrolyte and glyceryl trinitrate, for colostomy irrigation. Further well-designed clinical trials are required to establish solid evidence on the effectiveness of other irrigating solutions that might enhance colonic irrigation.

When I say … clinical supervision

Imagine this: you are a health professional working as part of a team when you notice a newly qualified health professional, a recent addition to the team, struggling to cope with the pressures of everyday health care service delivery. What can you do to support this newly qualified health professional specifically and to protect the health system more broadly? Clinical supervision may be the solution! It is not uncommon for health organisations to promote the clinical supervision of health professionals to enhance professional support as part of systemwide clinical governance processes. However, although the popularity of clinical supervision is growing, its impact is difficult to quantify. Why? Often because of a lack of understanding of what clinical supervision actually is and the ambiguity associated with its nomenclature. The purpose of this short paper is to shed light on what clinical supervision is, and is not, in the context of continuing professional development.

A systematic review of the factors that influence the quality and effectiveness of telesupervision for health professionals

Introduction Whilst telesupervision (clinical supervision undertaken using communication technology) is being used more frequently, there is limited information on what factors influence its effectiveness and quality. We undertook this systematic review to address this gap. Methods Eligible telesupervision studies were identified following targeted search of electronic databases and the grey literature. Data were synthesised thematically, resulting in development of core themes. Results We identified 286 papers for initial relevancy screening by title and abstract. The full text of 36 papers were then retrieved and assessed for further relevance. A total of 11 papers were included in the final analysis. We identified eight themes that contribute to effective and high-quality telesupervision: supervisee characteristics, supervisor characteristics, supervision characteristics, supervisory relationship, communication strategies, prior face-to-face contact, environmental factors and technological considerations. Conclusion From the available evidence, telesupervision can be a feasible and acceptable form of clinical supervision if set up well. Further studies with robust designs are required to strengthen the existing evidence on what makes telesupervision effective, as well as to examine its cost-effectiveness.