shared decision making - la trobe sport and exercise...
TRANSCRIPT
Shared decision making following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Patient
EvidenceClinician
@Knee_Howells
Brooke Patterson PhD CandidateSupervisors: Prof Kay Crossley, Dr Adam Culvenor, Dr Christian Barton
Sports and Exercise Medicine Research Centre
Sport & Exercise Medicine
Research Centre (LASEM)BACKGROUND
• Return to sport (RTS) decisions should be ‘’shared”
• Based on best available evidence(Ardern 2016)
- Include RTS testing (impairment, functional & psychological based)
- 9-12 months of rehabilitation(Van Melick 2016)
Figure 1. Based on 3 pillars of evidence based practice (Sackett 1996)
Patient
EvidenceClinician
RTS decision making
Sport & Exercise Medicine
Research Centre (LASEM)AIMS
Describe (in an Australian ACL reconstructed population):
• Duration of formal rehabilitation (i.e. physiotherapy)
• Frequency of formal RTS testing
• Who was involved in RTS decision (i.e. patient/surgeon/physiotherapist)
• Patient beliefs - who should be involved in the RTS decision making
N=111 Patient Reported Outcomes
1 year post primary ACLR
N=91 Patient Reported Outcomes
5 year post-ACLR
N=72 included for analysis
60% M 40% F Mean age 35+9
Sport & Exercise Medicine
Research Centre (LASEM)METHODS
Excluded:n=1 did not complete patient reported outcomes n = 18 not participating in level 1 or 2 sports previously*
Sport & Exercise Medicine
Research Centre (LASEM)METHODS: Customised Questions
1. Physiotherapy
“When did you cease formal physiotherapy? (0-1, 1-6, 6-12, >12 months)”
2. Formal return to sport testing
“Did you undergo any formal return to sport assessments with your physiotherapist at any
stage throughout your rehabilitation?”
I.e. greater than 3 assessments i.e. physical tests or questionnaires which gave you an objective
score(Van Melick 2016)
Webster et al., (2008)
METHODS Customised Questions
“Who was involved in the decision when/if you should
return your pre-injury level of sport?”
Note – can be singular or combination answer
Me, Physiotherapist,
Surgeon, or other health professional?
At the time of RTS
METHODS: Customised questions
“Reflecting on your experience who do you think should be
involved in the decision when/ifyou should return to your pre-
injury level of to sport?”
Note – can be singular or combination answer
Me, Physiotherapist,
Surgeon, or other health professional?
At 5 years
Sport & Exercise Medicine
Research Centre (LASEM)RESULTS - DEMOGRAPHICS
n=72 1-year post-ACLR 5-year post-ACLR
Age, median (range), years 26 (18-45) 32 (23-51)
Sex no. male (%) 44 (61%) 44 (61%)
BMI, median (range), kg/m2 26 (19-35) 26 (20-35)
Menisectomy/cartilage defect at time
of surgery, no. (%)36 (50%) 36 (50%)
Sport & Exercise Medicine
Research Centre (LASEM)RESULTS: RTS
Pre-Injury 1-year post-ACLR 5-year post-ACLR
Sports activity level, no. (%) (Grindem et al., 2012)Level 1. Jumping, cutting pivoting sportsLevel 2. Lateral movement sportsLevel 3. Straight line activitiesLevel 4. Sedentary
54 (69%)18 (23%)
6 (8%)0 (0%)
19 (24%)10 (13%)19 (24%)30 (39%)
25 (32%)11 (14%)32 (41%)10 (13%)
Time of RTS, median (range), months NA NA 14 (6-48)
Return to sport status, no (%)Pre injury (same sport, level of competition and frequency)
Any competitive sport (other type of level 1 or 2 sport excluding running, or training in same sport but not competing)
No competitive sport
NA
21% (n=15)
32% (n=23)
47% (n=34)
40% (n=29)
22% (n=16)
38% (n=27)
RESULTS – PARTICIPATION IN PHYSIOTHERAPY
90% had physiotherapy- 10% other (i.e. exercise
physiology, personal training)
Duration of physiotherapy:
NONE
<1 MONTH
1-6 MONTHS
6-12 MONTHS
>12 MONTHS
• 1/3 1-6 months
• 1/3 > 6months
• 1/3 <1 month
RESULTS: How many completed RTS testing?
Completed RTS testing =
24% (n= 17)*
*Definition = At least 3 assessments (physical or psychological readiness
measures)7
Webster et al., (2008)
RESULTS: RTS decision making
Patient
Physiotherapist
Surgeon
Physiotherapist & Surgeon
Patient & Surgeon
Patient & Physiotherapist
Patient, Surgeon, & Physiotherapist
At 5 years
Patient
Physiotherapist
Surgeon
Physiotherapist & Surgeon
At the time of RTS
Patient
Physiotherapist
Surgeon
Physiotherapist and Surgeon
Patient & Surgeon
Patient & Physiotherapist
Patient, Surgeon, &
Physiotherapist
39%
At 5 years
RESULTS: SHARED DECISIONS
Patient
Physiotherapist
Surgeon
Physiotherapist and Surgeon
10%
90% RTS based purely on:decision of 1 health professional
ORwithout guidance from a health professional at all
= Patient + 1 other clinician
At the time of RTS
PATIENT INVOLVEMENT
Patient
Physiotherapist
Surgeon
Physiotherapist and Surgeon
39%
Patient
Physiotherapist
Surgeon
Physiotherapist and SurgeonPatient &
Surgeon
Patient & Physiotherapist
Patient, Surgeon, &
Physiotherapist
72%
At 5 years At the time of RTS
PHYSIOTHERAPY INVOLVEMENT
Patient
Physiotherapist
Surgeon
Physiotherapist and SurgeonPatient &
Surgeon
Patient & Physiotherapist
Patient, Surgeon, &
Physiotherapist
60%
Patient
Physiotherapist
Surgeon
Physiotherapist and Surgeon
46%
At 5 years At the time of RTS
Sport & Exercise Medicine
Research Centre (LASEM)LIMITATIONS
Novel, retrospective data, future research should:
Investigate evidence – clinical practice gaps further I.e. Larger cohorts/multi-centresI.e. Include barriers for participation, duration, and type of rehabilitation
(Ebert, Edwards et al. 2017, Nawasreh, Logerstedt et al. 2017)
Sport & Exercise Medicine
Research Centre (LASEM)FUTURE RESEARCH
Investigate whether intervention and what type can improve outcomes I.e. additional end stage rehabilitation and/or education to increase shared decision making, formal rehabilitation and return to sport testing?
Sport & Exercise Medicine
Research Centre (LASEM)SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1. Short duration of formal physiotherapy
2. Low frequency of RTS testing
3. Shared decision making rarely occurred at the time of return to sport
Sport & Exercise Medicine
Research Centre (LASEM)SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Patient reflections Do they agree with consensus statements?(Ardern 2016)
- >70% patient involved - Only 39% said should be shared
Remember shared decision making is also a personal preference….
Sport & Exercise Medicine
Research Centre (LASEM)CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
1. Patient education Value of RTS criteria and testingExpected amount of supervised therapy Shared decision making process
2. Identify barriers for patients Fear of reinjury – motivation in therapy Cost effectiveness of end stage rehabilitation
3. Identify barriers for clinicians Value of education & assessment as ongoing treatment Referral to strength and conditioning / up-skilling for end stage
Sport & Exercise Medicine
Research Centre (LASEM)
@Knee_Howells
Latrobe Sports and Exercise Medicine Research Centre Blog: http://semrc.blogs.latrobe.edu.au
THANK YOU AND QUESTIONS
Sport & Exercise Medicine
Research Centre (LASEM)REFERENCES
1. Ardern, C. L., M. Bizzini and R. Bahr (2016). "It is time for consensus on return to play after injury: five key questions." Br J Sports Med50(9): 506-508.
2. van Melick, N., R. E. van Cingel, F. Brooijmans, C. Neeter, T. van Tienen, W. Hullegie and M. W. Nijhuis-van der Sanden (2016). "Evidence-based clinical practice update: practice guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation based on a systematic review and multidisciplinary consensus." Br J Sports Med 50(24): 1506-1515.
3. Sackett, D. L., W. M. Rosenberg, J. A. Gray, R. B. Haynes and W. S. Richardson (1996). "Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't." BMJ 312(7023): 71-72.
4. Ebert, J. R., P. Edwards, L. Yi, B. Joss, T. Ackland, R. Carey-Smith, J. U. Buelow and B. Hewitt (2017). "Strength and functional symmetry is associated with post-operative rehabilitation in patients following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction." Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.
5. Nawasreh, Z., D. Logerstedt, K. Cummer, M. Axe, M. A. Risberg and L. Snyder-Mackler (2017). "Functional performance 6 months after ACL reconstruction can predict return to participation in the same preinjury activity level 12 and 24 months after surgery." Br J Sports Med.
6. Webster, K. E., J. A. Feller and C. Lambros (2008). "Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure the psychological impact of returning to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery." Phys Ther Sport 9(1): 9-15.
7. Grindem, H., I. Eitzen, H. Moksnes, L. Snyder-Mackler and M. A. Risberg (2012). "A pair-matched comparison of return to pivoting sports at 1 year in anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients after a nonoperative versus an operative treatment course." Am J Sports Med 40(11): 2509-2516.