Physiotherapy assessment of people with neurological conditions in Australia: A national survey.

Background and Purpose: Currently there are approximately one billion people worldwide affected by a neurological condition. These conditions may result in a variety of impairments that require assessment and management from a physiotherapist. However, there is a lack of consensus in the literature as to what domains physiotherapists working in clinical settings include in their assessment of this population, with only five domains identified in a recent systematic review. This study aimed to explore current physiotherapy assessments in people with neurological conditions, including barriers, enablers, and influencing factors. Methods: A National online survey of Australian physiotherapists who assessed adults with neurological conditions in their clinical practice. Results: A total of 212 respondents from all states in Australia completed the survey. The mean (SD) age was 35.7 (9.6) years, and the majority were female (85.4%). Respondents worked across various settings assessing stroke most frequently (58.0%). Study results demonstrated variability in assessment practice, with a number of assessment domains being assessed more commonly including balance, muscle strength, gait, falls and safety, function, goal setting, range of movement, pain, co-ordination, activity tolerance, postural alignment and symmetry, and the upper limb. Experienced physiotherapists and those in rural and remote settings included fewer domains in their assessments. On the other hand, physiotherapists in the community setting included certain domains more frequently than those in other settings. Barriers and enablers were related to therapist caseload, knowledge, and intrinsic patient factors. Discussion: There is variability in domains assessed by Australian physiotherapists, with an emerging consensus for a number of assessment domains. Study results suggest that clinical experience, geographical location, and clinical setting may play a role in the assessment patterns observed. Implications on Physiotherapy Practice: There is little evidence to support what physiotherapists assess in practice, in different settings, in different states within Australia. This study indicates that experience, geographical location, and clinical setting affect the number and types of domains included in the assessment. Further research is needed to develop a consensus on best practices.

Physiotherapy assessment in people with neurological conditions-Evidence for the most frequently included domains: A mixed-methods systematic review.

RATIONALE: There is a lack of consensus in the literature related to what is assessed clinically by physical therapists in people with neurological disorders. AIMS: This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to identify domains that physiotherapists routinely assess in people with neurological conditions in clinical settings and explored factors influencing assessment domains including country, clinical setting, therapist experience and neurological condition. METHOD: Five databases were searched from 1946 to 31st January 2023. Studies with any design reporting on domains assessed by a physiotherapist, in people with neurological conditions in any clinical setting, were included. Independent reviewers assessed eligibility and risk of bias using relevant McMaster critical appraisal tools. Data were extracted and synthesised following the Joanna Briggs Institute approach for mixed systematic reviews. RESULTS: A total of 23 (16 quantitative, 7 qualitative) studies involving 3134 participants were included. The studies were rated as high (n = 14) or medium (n = 9) quality. The domains of function (n = 14); postural alignment and symmetry (n = 11); gait (n = 11); balance (n = 9), and muscle strength (n = 8) were most frequently included in assessments. Five key themes were identified from the qualitative studies: the clinical reasoning process, clinical use of standardised measures, utilisation of the senses, clinician experience and information gathering. There was minimal data on how country, clinical setting, therapist experience and neurological condition influence inclusion of assessed domains. CONCLUSION: Five domains were most frequently included in assessment: function; postural alignment and symmetry; gait; muscle strength; and balance. This limited number of domains is in stark contrast to the full neurological physiotherapy assessment recommended by expert textbooks. Further research is needed to understand the reasons why this might be so.

Allied health clinical supervision: An opportunity lost.

This study investigated clinical supervision with Allied Health professionals in a public health setting. Staff perceptions and experiences were explored through focus group discussions. Key themes identified that supervisees "tip-toe into complexity" by engaging in reflective practice for incremental personal and professional development. In contrast, supervisors identified that reflexivity was required for the opportunity to "develop at a deeper level". Offering a choice of supervisor and providing supervisor training enhanced supervision experiences. Challenges to effective supervision were identified. Competing priorities, inconsistent modes of delivery, major organisational change and the role of clinical supervision in line with professional development confounded the experiences. Health managers could improve the processes and outcomes by implementing consistency with approach, timing, documentation, language, and structure of Clinical Supervision.