ASSESSMENT PRACTICES AMONG TURKISH PHYSIOTHERAPISTS: A CROSS SECTIONAL STUDY OF TIME ALLOCATION, METHODS, AND BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE CLINICAL EVALUATION

Öz

Background: Accurate and systematic patient assessment is foundation of effective physiotherapy practice. Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the frequency of assessment, how much time physiotherapists in Turkey spend in clinics, which methods they use, and to investigate the barriers for physiotherapists to perform assessment. Methods: The data collection process was completed with an online questionnaire prepared on Google Forms. Information regarding evaluation processes and barriers was obtained from physiotherapists' own perspectives. Results: While 94.5% (n: 189) of the physiotherapists stated that they evaluated their patients for the first time only, 35% (n: 70) reported allocating less than 10–20 minutes for evaluation. Additionally, 56.5% (n: 113) stated that they did not use a standardized form during evaluations. A total of 79% (n: 158) indicated using more than one method, and 67% (n: 134) preferred low-cost measurement tools during patient assessment. Physiotherapists reported that the greatest barrier to adequately assessing their patients was “lack of time” (37.5%; n: 75). Conclusion: It is important that physiotherapists working one-to-one and for long periods with diverse patient groups have the necessary means and facilities for a successful assessment process, as effective assessment is necessary for a successful treatment program.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• physiotherapist
• patient assessment
• barrier

Destekleyen Kurum

None

Proje Numarası

(19.12.2023/10-493)

Etik Beyan

Ethics committee approval of the study was obtained from XXX University Health Sciences Ethics Committee in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (19.12.2023/10-493).

Teşekkür

none

TÜRK FİZYOTERAPİSTLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRME UYGULAMALARI: ZAMAN DAĞILIMI, YÖNTEMLER VE ETKİLİ KLİNİK DEĞERLENDİRMENİN ÖNÜNDEKİ ENGELLER ÜZERİNE KESİTSEL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Öz

Giriş: Doğru ve sistematik hasta değerlendirmesi, etkili fizyoterapi uygulamasının temelidir. Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, değerlendirme sıklığını, Türkiye'deki fizyoterapistlerin kliniklerde ne kadar zaman geçirdiklerini, hangi yöntemleri kullandıklarını belirlemek ve fizyoterapistlerin değerlendirme yapmalarının önündeki engelleri araştırmaktır. Yöntem: Veri toplama süreci, Google Forms üzerinde hazırlanan çevrimiçi bir anket ile tamamlandı. Değerlendirme süreçleri ve engellerle ilgili bilgiler, fizyoterapistlerin kendi bakış açıları ile elde edildi. Bulgular: Fizyoterapistlerin %94,5'i (n: 189) hastalarını sadece ilk kez değerlendirdiklerini belirtirken, %35'i (n: 70) değerlendirme için 10-20 dakikadan az zaman ayırdıklarını bildirdi. Ayrıca, %56,5'i (n: 113) değerlendirmeler sırasında standart bir form kullanmadıklarını belirtti. Toplam %79'u (n: 158) birden fazla yöntem kullandığını ve %67'si (n: 134) hasta değerlendirmesi sırasında düşük maliyetli ölçüm araçlarını tercih ettiğini belirtti. Fizyoterapistler, hastalarını yeterince değerlendirmekteki en büyük engelin “zaman eksikliği” olduğunu bildirdi (%37,5; n: 75). Sonuç: Bire bir ve uzun süreler boyunca çeşitli hasta gruplarıyla çalışan fizyoterapistlerin, başarılı bir değerlendirme süreci için gerekli araç ve imkanlara sahip olması önemlidir, çünkü etkili bir değerlendirme başarılı bir tedavi programı için gereklidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• fizyoterapist
• hasta değerlendirmesi
• engel

Destekleyen Kurum

yok

Proje Numarası

(19.12.2023/10-493)

Etik Beyan

Çalışma, Helsinki Deklarasyonu (19.12.2023/10-493) uyarınca XXX Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Etik Kurulu'ndan etik kurul onayı almıştır.

Teşekkür

yok

Kaynakça

1. 1. Feinstein AR. Clinimetric perspectives. J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40(6): 635-640.
2. 2. World Confederation for Physical Therapy. Policy statement: Standards of physical therapist practice. London, UK: WCPT. 2011. https://world.physio/guideline/standards (Access date 30.04.2024)
3. 3. Jette DU, Halbert J, Iverson C, Miceli E, Shah P. Use of standardized outcome measures in physical therapist practice: perceptions and applications. Phys Ther. 2009; 89(2): 125-135.
4. 4. Swinkels RA, van Peppen RP, Wittink H, Custers JW, Beurskens AJ. Current use and barriers and facilitators for implementation of standardised measures in physical therapy in the Netherlands. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011; 12: 1-15.
5. 5. Duncan EA, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012; 12: 1-9.
6. 6. Braun T, Rieckmann A, Weber F, Grüneberg C. Current use of measurement instruments by physiotherapists working in Germany: a cross-sectional online survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018; 18: 1-16.
7. 7. Al-Muqiren TN, Al-Eisa ES, Alghadir AH, Anwer S. Implementation and use of standardized outcome measures by physical therapists in Saudi Arabia: barriers, facilitators and perceptions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017; 17: 1-10.
8. 8. Hefford C, Abbott JH, Baxter GD, Arnold R. Outcome measurement in clinical practice: practical and theoretical issues for health related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires. Phys Ther Rev. 2011; 16:155–67.

9. 9. Health I. World Organisation of Family Doctors (Wonca) perspectives on person-centered medicine. Int J Integr Care. 2010;10: e005-e005.
10. 10. El-Sobkey SB, Helmy AM. Evidence-based practice and standardized outcome measures: Egyptian physical therapists' beliefs, perceptions and adoption. World Appl Sci J. 2012; 16(9):1282–91.
11. 11. Çıraklı Ü. Comparison of Average Patient Examination Times Per Capita Between 2002-2018 in 18 OECD Countries. Journal of Quality and Accreditation in Health. 2020; 3(1): 43-54.
12. 12. Yardım M, Eser E. How many minutes should be reserved per patient in ambulatory care visits?. Turk J Public Health. 2017; 15(1): 58-67.
13. 13. Azak A, Taşçı S. Clinical decision making and nursing: review. J Med Ethics. 2009; 17(3):176-83.
14. 14. Dyche L, Swiderski D. The effect of physician solicitation approaches on ability to identify patient concerns. J Gen Intern Med. 2005; 20(3):267-70
15. 15. Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, McWhinney IR, Oates J, Weston WW, Jordan J. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract. 2000; 49(9):796-804.
16. 16. Hendriks HJM, Oostendorp RAB, Bernards ATM, Van Ravensberg CD, Heerkens YF, Nelson RM. The diagnostic process and indication for physiotherapy: a prerequisite for treatment and outcome evaluation. Phys Ther Rev. 2000; 5(1): 29-47.
17. 17. Fawcett AJL. Principles of assessment and outcome measurement for occupational therapists and physiotherapists: theory, skills and application. Chichester: Wiley, 2007.
18. 18. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Goal 1: strengthen health care, 2022. [https://www.hhs.gov/about/strategic-plan/2022-2026/goal-1/index.html].(Access date 16.06.2024)
19. 19. Sullivan M. The new subjective medicine: taking the patient’s point of view on health care and health. Soc Sci Med. 2003; 56(7):1595–1604.
20. 20. Thornquist E. Musculoskeletal suffering: diagnosis and a variant view. Sociol Health Illn. 1995; 17(2):166–192.