Cargando…

Development and validation of Australian aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a national set of best practice statements for use in post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation. DESIGN: Literature review and statement validation using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM). PARTICIPANTS: A national Community of Practice of over 250 speech patholo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Power, Emma, Thomas, Emma, Worrall, Linda, Rose, Miranda, Togher, Leanne, Nickels, Lyndsey, Hersh, Deborah, Godecke, Erin, O'Halloran, Robyn, Lamont, Sue, O'Connor, Claire, Clarke, Kim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4499686/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26137883
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007641
_version_ 1782380827493007360
author Power, Emma
Thomas, Emma
Worrall, Linda
Rose, Miranda
Togher, Leanne
Nickels, Lyndsey
Hersh, Deborah
Godecke, Erin
O'Halloran, Robyn
Lamont, Sue
O'Connor, Claire
Clarke, Kim
author_facet Power, Emma
Thomas, Emma
Worrall, Linda
Rose, Miranda
Togher, Leanne
Nickels, Lyndsey
Hersh, Deborah
Godecke, Erin
O'Halloran, Robyn
Lamont, Sue
O'Connor, Claire
Clarke, Kim
author_sort Power, Emma
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a national set of best practice statements for use in post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation. DESIGN: Literature review and statement validation using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM). PARTICIPANTS: A national Community of Practice of over 250 speech pathologists, researchers, consumers and policymakers developed a framework consisting of eight areas of care in aphasia rehabilitation. This framework provided the structure for the development of a care pathway containing aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements. Nine speech pathologists with expertise in aphasia rehabilitation participated in two rounds of RAND/UCLA appropriateness ratings of the statements. Panellists consisted of researchers, service managers, clinicians and policymakers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Statements that achieved a high level of agreement and an overall median score of 7–9 on a nine-point scale were rated as ‘appropriate’. RESULTS: 74 best practice statements were extracted from the literature and rated across eight areas of care (eg, receiving the right referrals, providing intervention). At the end of Round 1, 71 of the 74 statements were rated as appropriate, no statements were rated as inappropriate, and three statements were rated as uncertain. All 74 statements were then rated again in the face-to-face second round. 16 statements were added through splitting existing items or adding new statements. Seven statements were deleted leaving 83 statements. Agreement was reached for 82 of the final 83 statements. CONCLUSIONS: This national set of 82 best practice statements across eight care areas for the rehabilitation of people with aphasia is the first to be validated by an expert panel. These statements form a crucial component of the Australian Aphasia Rehabilitation Pathway (AARP) (http://www.aphasiapathway.com.au) and provide the basis for more consistent implementation of evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4499686
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44996862015-07-15 Development and validation of Australian aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method Power, Emma Thomas, Emma Worrall, Linda Rose, Miranda Togher, Leanne Nickels, Lyndsey Hersh, Deborah Godecke, Erin O'Halloran, Robyn Lamont, Sue O'Connor, Claire Clarke, Kim BMJ Open Rehabilitation Medicine OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a national set of best practice statements for use in post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation. DESIGN: Literature review and statement validation using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM). PARTICIPANTS: A national Community of Practice of over 250 speech pathologists, researchers, consumers and policymakers developed a framework consisting of eight areas of care in aphasia rehabilitation. This framework provided the structure for the development of a care pathway containing aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements. Nine speech pathologists with expertise in aphasia rehabilitation participated in two rounds of RAND/UCLA appropriateness ratings of the statements. Panellists consisted of researchers, service managers, clinicians and policymakers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Statements that achieved a high level of agreement and an overall median score of 7–9 on a nine-point scale were rated as ‘appropriate’. RESULTS: 74 best practice statements were extracted from the literature and rated across eight areas of care (eg, receiving the right referrals, providing intervention). At the end of Round 1, 71 of the 74 statements were rated as appropriate, no statements were rated as inappropriate, and three statements were rated as uncertain. All 74 statements were then rated again in the face-to-face second round. 16 statements were added through splitting existing items or adding new statements. Seven statements were deleted leaving 83 statements. Agreement was reached for 82 of the final 83 statements. CONCLUSIONS: This national set of 82 best practice statements across eight care areas for the rehabilitation of people with aphasia is the first to be validated by an expert panel. These statements form a crucial component of the Australian Aphasia Rehabilitation Pathway (AARP) (http://www.aphasiapathway.com.au) and provide the basis for more consistent implementation of evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-07-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4499686/ /pubmed/26137883 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007641 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Rehabilitation Medicine
Power, Emma
Thomas, Emma
Worrall, Linda
Rose, Miranda
Togher, Leanne
Nickels, Lyndsey
Hersh, Deborah
Godecke, Erin
O'Halloran, Robyn
Lamont, Sue
O'Connor, Claire
Clarke, Kim
Development and validation of Australian aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method
title Development and validation of Australian aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method
title_full Development and validation of Australian aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method
title_fullStr Development and validation of Australian aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method
title_full_unstemmed Development and validation of Australian aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method
title_short Development and validation of Australian aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method
title_sort development and validation of australian aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements using the rand/ucla appropriateness method
topic Rehabilitation Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4499686/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26137883
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007641
work_keys_str_mv AT poweremma developmentandvalidationofaustralianaphasiarehabilitationbestpracticestatementsusingtheranduclaappropriatenessmethod
AT thomasemma developmentandvalidationofaustralianaphasiarehabilitationbestpracticestatementsusingtheranduclaappropriatenessmethod
AT worralllinda developmentandvalidationofaustralianaphasiarehabilitationbestpracticestatementsusingtheranduclaappropriatenessmethod
AT rosemiranda developmentandvalidationofaustralianaphasiarehabilitationbestpracticestatementsusingtheranduclaappropriatenessmethod
AT togherleanne developmentandvalidationofaustralianaphasiarehabilitationbestpracticestatementsusingtheranduclaappropriatenessmethod
AT nickelslyndsey developmentandvalidationofaustralianaphasiarehabilitationbestpracticestatementsusingtheranduclaappropriatenessmethod
AT hershdeborah developmentandvalidationofaustralianaphasiarehabilitationbestpracticestatementsusingtheranduclaappropriatenessmethod
AT godeckeerin developmentandvalidationofaustralianaphasiarehabilitationbestpracticestatementsusingtheranduclaappropriatenessmethod
AT ohalloranrobyn developmentandvalidationofaustralianaphasiarehabilitationbestpracticestatementsusingtheranduclaappropriatenessmethod
AT lamontsue developmentandvalidationofaustralianaphasiarehabilitationbestpracticestatementsusingtheranduclaappropriatenessmethod
AT oconnorclaire developmentandvalidationofaustralianaphasiarehabilitationbestpracticestatementsusingtheranduclaappropriatenessmethod
AT clarkekim developmentandvalidationofaustralianaphasiarehabilitationbestpracticestatementsusingtheranduclaappropriatenessmethod