Jeremy Graber, Lauren A. Hinrichs-Kinney, Laura Churchill, Daniel D. Matlock, Andrew Kittelson, Adam Lutz, Michael Bade, Jennifer Stevens-Lapsley
{"title":"全膝关节置换术后个性化康复“像我一样的人”工具的实施:一项混合方法的试点研究","authors":"Jeremy Graber, Lauren A. Hinrichs-Kinney, Laura Churchill, Daniel D. Matlock, Andrew Kittelson, Adam Lutz, Michael Bade, Jennifer Stevens-Lapsley","doi":"10.1111/jep.70028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>While there are numerous tools available to inform if and when to use total knee arthroplasty (TKA), very few tools exist to help guide the recovery period after surgery.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims and objectives</h3>\n \n <p>We piloted a decision support tool that promotes a “people-like-me” (PLM) approach to rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The PLM approach encourages person-centered care by “using historical outcomes data from similar (past) patients as a template of what to expect for a new patient”. In this study, we evaluated how successfully the PLM tool was implemented and examined contextual factors that may have influenced its implementation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Two outpatient physical therapy clinics (Clinics A and B) piloted the PLM tool from September 2020 – December 2022. We gathered data related to its implementation from multiple sources including the electronic health record (EHR), the tool itself, and surveys and interviews with patients and clinicians. We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to analyze the data overall and separately by each clinic.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Overall, the clinics met most pre-specified implementation targets, but did not use the tool as frequently as intended. Both clinics identified time, technology, and scheduling barriers to using the tool, but Clinic A scored higher in nearly every implementation outcome. Clinic A's success may have been related to its clinicians' higher level of experience, more positive attitudes towards the tool, and more active approach to implementation compared to Clinic B.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The clinics met most of our implementation targets, but Clinic A experienced more success than Clinic B. Future efforts to implement this PLM tool should (1) engage clinicians as active participants in the implementation process, (2) explore whether incorporating treatment recommendations into the PLM tool and/or using alternative training strategies can enhance its ability to alter clinician behavior, (3) integrate the tool within the EHR to complement existing workflows and mitigate implementation barriers, and (4) include randomized controlled trials that evaluate the tool's effectiveness and scalability across diverse clinical settings.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementation of a “People-Like-Me” Tool for Personalized Rehabilitation After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study\",\"authors\":\"Jeremy Graber, Lauren A. Hinrichs-Kinney, Laura Churchill, Daniel D. Matlock, Andrew Kittelson, Adam Lutz, Michael Bade, Jennifer Stevens-Lapsley\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.70028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Rationale</h3>\\n \\n <p>While there are numerous tools available to inform if and when to use total knee arthroplasty (TKA), very few tools exist to help guide the recovery period after surgery.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aims and objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>We piloted a decision support tool that promotes a “people-like-me” (PLM) approach to rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The PLM approach encourages person-centered care by “using historical outcomes data from similar (past) patients as a template of what to expect for a new patient”. In this study, we evaluated how successfully the PLM tool was implemented and examined contextual factors that may have influenced its implementation.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Two outpatient physical therapy clinics (Clinics A and B) piloted the PLM tool from September 2020 – December 2022. We gathered data related to its implementation from multiple sources including the electronic health record (EHR), the tool itself, and surveys and interviews with patients and clinicians. We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to analyze the data overall and separately by each clinic.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Overall, the clinics met most pre-specified implementation targets, but did not use the tool as frequently as intended. Both clinics identified time, technology, and scheduling barriers to using the tool, but Clinic A scored higher in nearly every implementation outcome. Clinic A's success may have been related to its clinicians' higher level of experience, more positive attitudes towards the tool, and more active approach to implementation compared to Clinic B.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The clinics met most of our implementation targets, but Clinic A experienced more success than Clinic B. Future efforts to implement this PLM tool should (1) engage clinicians as active participants in the implementation process, (2) explore whether incorporating treatment recommendations into the PLM tool and/or using alternative training strategies can enhance its ability to alter clinician behavior, (3) integrate the tool within the EHR to complement existing workflows and mitigate implementation barriers, and (4) include randomized controlled trials that evaluate the tool's effectiveness and scalability across diverse clinical settings.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70028\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Implementation of a “People-Like-Me” Tool for Personalized Rehabilitation After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study
Rationale
While there are numerous tools available to inform if and when to use total knee arthroplasty (TKA), very few tools exist to help guide the recovery period after surgery.
Aims and objectives
We piloted a decision support tool that promotes a “people-like-me” (PLM) approach to rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The PLM approach encourages person-centered care by “using historical outcomes data from similar (past) patients as a template of what to expect for a new patient”. In this study, we evaluated how successfully the PLM tool was implemented and examined contextual factors that may have influenced its implementation.
Methods
Two outpatient physical therapy clinics (Clinics A and B) piloted the PLM tool from September 2020 – December 2022. We gathered data related to its implementation from multiple sources including the electronic health record (EHR), the tool itself, and surveys and interviews with patients and clinicians. We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to analyze the data overall and separately by each clinic.
Results
Overall, the clinics met most pre-specified implementation targets, but did not use the tool as frequently as intended. Both clinics identified time, technology, and scheduling barriers to using the tool, but Clinic A scored higher in nearly every implementation outcome. Clinic A's success may have been related to its clinicians' higher level of experience, more positive attitudes towards the tool, and more active approach to implementation compared to Clinic B.
Conclusions
The clinics met most of our implementation targets, but Clinic A experienced more success than Clinic B. Future efforts to implement this PLM tool should (1) engage clinicians as active participants in the implementation process, (2) explore whether incorporating treatment recommendations into the PLM tool and/or using alternative training strategies can enhance its ability to alter clinician behavior, (3) integrate the tool within the EHR to complement existing workflows and mitigate implementation barriers, and (4) include randomized controlled trials that evaluate the tool's effectiveness and scalability across diverse clinical settings.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.