Sustainment of Proactive Physical Therapy for Individuals With Early-Stage Parkinson’s Disease: A Quality Improvement Study Over 4 Years

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-143443/v1

Download PDF

Short report

Sustainment of Proactive Physical Therapy for Individuals With Early-Stage Parkinson’s Disease: A Quality Improvement Study Over 4 Years

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-143443/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Background: Implementation science frameworks aided the development of a new, evidence-based clinical physical therapy program. The purpose of this report is to describe the process of sustaining a clinical program in practice for over four years. We present a framework for integrating tools for sustainability with the Knowledge-to-Action model in the context of a proactive physical therapy program (PAPT) for individuals with early stage Parkinson’s disease.

Methods: Sustainability of implementation strategies was addressed using the Dynamic Sustainability Framework and sustainability assessment tools. Repeated retrospective medical record reviews and semi-structured interviews were used to evaluate the reach and adoption of the PAPT over four years. Characteristics of those who engaged with PAPT, implementation fidelity, and clinical effectiveness were assessed for Year 1 and Year 3. Sustainability was measured using RE-AIM, NHS Sustainability Model, and Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool.

Results: Reach increased from 28 to 110 total patients per year and spread occurred from one to three sites. PAPT user age, sex, Hoehn & Yahr rating, time since diagnosis and type of insurance were similar in Year 1 and Year 3 (p>0.05). The program sustained its effect to help participants increase or maintain self-reported exercise (Y1: 95%, Y3: 100%). However, upon evaluation PAPT users in Year 3 had longer time since symptom onset and worse UPDRS motor scores compared to the PAPT users in Year 1 (p<0.05). All sites sustained the core intervention components, with sustainability scores of 71/100 (± 9.9) on the NHS Sustainability Model and 6.1/7 (± 0.9) on the Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool.

Conclusions: Integrating multiple sustainability models and assessments supported continued effectiveness, spread, and sustainment of PAPT for four years. Effective planning, anticipating common healthcare changes, and addressing sustainability determinants early in program implementation were essential aspects of long-term success.

Infectious Diseases

Neurobiology of Disease

Sustainment

spread

implementation science

Parkinson’s disease

physical therapy

quality improvement

Defining sustainability goals early in the implementation process, applying implementation frameworks, and using sustainability assessments, may increase the maintenance of a novel evidence-based, clinical program.
Repeating implementation evaluation frameworks, such as RE-AIM, can improve understanding of the clinical programs’ sustainment outcomes.
A successful, evidenced-based proactive physical therapy program for individuals with early stage PD can be sustained with careful attention to processes, staff, and organizational priorities.

Clinical practice guidelines support physical therapy (PT) in early Parkinson’s disease (PD) (1). Despite these guidelines, payer datasets and patient registries reveal infrequent utilization of PT (2, 3). The ProActive Physical Therapy (PAPT) program was established in 2016 to provide PT evaluations and individually-tailored recommendations for physical activity and exercise in people with early PD (4). The specific PAPT care path consists of one to four visits approximately every six months to monitor changes and update PD-specific exercise prescription. This proactive, consultative model contrasts the traditional, restorative use of PT to treat functional declines after they occur.

Established implementation frameworks informed the development of PAPT. The Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) Cycle was used to organize the process of implementation (5). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) identified the implementation determinants (6). The RE-AIM framework organized the initial program evaluation (7). The PAPT care path improved access to PT for individuals with early PD and demonstrated effectiveness through self-reported increases in exercise and high satisfaction levels (4). However, in a post-participation interview, barriers to participation remained. Notably, a single location inhibited full access to care, indicating a need for wider geographical reach, therefore suggesting specific attention to spread and sustainment.

Sustainment, an essential component of implementation, has been described using various methods to preserve fidelity in an ever-changing healthcare environment (5, 7, 8). Dynamic and adaptable implementation strategies and processes are recommended to increase the likelihood of implementation fidelity during the sustainment process (5, 8, 9). Recently, a definition of sustainability has emerged as “[1] after a defined period of time, [2] a program, clinical intervention, and/or implementation strategies continue to be delivered and/or [3] individual behavior change (i.e., clinician, patient) is maintained; [4] the program and individual behavior change may evolve or adapt while [5] continuing to produce benefits for individuals/systems” (10). Several sustainability assessments, including the National Health System (NHS) Sustainability Model and Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT) have been presented and are recommended to be performed repeatedly, but lack research on their psychometric properties and application (11, 12).

Sustainment of a clinical program can occur in a single context or in combination with scaling or spread to new contexts to increase coverage of the intervention (13). When spread occurs to different settings, environment-specific variations need to be considered when adapting sustainment strategies.

This short report aims to describe the sustainment of PAPT as it spread to additional sites. We document a four-year process and clinical outcomes of PAPT, stakeholder sustainability assessment, and an example of integrating the sustainability frameworks through the overall implementation process.

Context

ProActive Physical Therapy was initially adopted at one urban, outpatient department within a large healthcare organization, a designated Parkinson’s Center of Excellence. Spread occurred to two smaller suburban sites within the same rehabilitation system of care. The original outpatient department had volumes of 137 to 152 patients per day during the study period, while the suburban sites had volumes of 36 to 73 patients per day. The team leading the efforts included one research-trained physical therapist, one clinical expert, the department managers, a physical therapist from the organization’s staff development program, and an external knowledge translation mentor.

Implementation and Sustainability Intervention

Implementation and sustainability strategies were identified through meetings with various stakeholders including therapists and organization leadership. As initial implementation transitioned to sustainment phases, using the Dynamic Sustainability Framework (DSF), promoted adaptability for strategies targeting the intervention, context, and ecological system (9). Key strategies to aid the spread and sustainment included a program facilitator to lead stakeholder meetings and organize implementation strategies; site champions to facilitate local implementation; organizational programs to maintain resources and mentor staff; and monthly meetings for monitoring program barriers and facilitators, delivering feedback, and providing informal support. A list of the implementation strategies from year one (Y1), as well as the modifications applied for program fidelity and sustainment, categorized using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy are included in supplemental materials [Additional file 1](14, 15). These strategies include site-specific modifications at the suburban clinics related to implementation strategies of building and maintaining relationships with clients and referral sources for scheduling and long-term adherence; staff support of clinical processes and paperwork; leadership support; clinician training; and providing interactive evaluative strategies to ensure fidelity.

Study of Intervention

Data Sources and Participants

Data sources include: [1] administrative data from the outpatient department on referrals and utilization (2016-2019), [2] retrospective electronic medical records (EMR) of first-time PAPT users in Y1 (2016) and year 3 (Y3) (2018), [3] quality improvement interview recordings of first-time PAPT users from Y1 and Y3 who responded to a quality improvement phone interview request, and [4] stakeholder survey results from the NHS Sustainability Model and CSAT to evaluate sustainment after completion of year four (Y4). PAPT users include those who were referred and attended the PAPT program. Eligible PAPT users were referred with a mild or moderate PD diagnosis or suspected prodromal PD (e.g. REM sleep behavior disorder, hyposmia) who accessed the program for the first time in Y1 and Y3. Participants were excluded from this analysis if they were referred to the PAPT program with a different diagnosis. Three champions and one facilitator completed the NHS Sustainability Model assessment tool and the CSAT. Additionally, five organization leaders and one referrer completed the CSAT only.

Measures

The RE-AIM framework was used to assess and describe the spread and sustainment outcomes of PAPT. Reach of the program was measured by providing the number of PAPT users across all sites, the number of first-time users, and the number retained each year (i.e.an individual who accessed PAPT in a previous year). Demographics of PAPT users were compared between Y1 and Y3.

Effectiveness was evaluated with quality improvement phone interviews. Sustained clinical effectiveness is operationalized through (1) PAPT user self-reported changes in exercise, (2) self-reported benefit of PAPT on an 11 point scale from 0 (not beneficial) to 10 (extremely beneficial), and (3) program recommendation to others on a similar scale from 0 (not likely to recommend at all) to 10 (extremely likely to recommend). The results from interviews in Y3 were compared to Y1 as able. Adoption was measured as the 1) number of sites, 2) number of physical therapists trained and using the PAPT care model, 3) referral numbers from targeted referrers, 4) proportion of PAPT users who attended versus the number referred to PAPT, and 5) number of PAPT users who engaged in a long-term follow-up episode of care. Sustained implementation fidelity was assessed by EMR review of (1) physical activity and exercise prescription for PAPT users through documented home exercise prescription and (2) PAPT care path utilization.

Maintenance was assessed through sustainability assessments were issued after year four. The NHS Sustainability Model includes ten questions in three domains: staff, organization, and processes. Each item is measured on a 4-point categorical scale, and summed into a total score with a maximum of 100 points. This models’s training materials propose that a score over 55 indicates optimism toward sustaining the program (11). The CSAT contains 35 questions in seven domains: engaged staff and leaders, engaged stakeholders, organizational readiness, workflow integration, implementation and training, monitoring and evaluation, outcomes and effectiveness. Each item is scored on a 7-point response scale, which is averaged within each domain and across domains for a total score from 1-7 (12).

Analysis: Data are presented with descriptive statistics. PAPT user characteristics, interview responses, and documentation of information related to program fidelity from Y1 and Y3 were compared with an unpaired t-test or Chi-square test based on the type of data.

Ethical considerations: Because of the nature of quality improvement and program evaluation the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board determined that this EMR data extraction and semi-structured interviews did not qualify as human subjects research. Data from all sources were collected and maintained using HIPAA compliant methods. Reporting was completed using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (Additional file 2) (16).

The results of the program are presented in Table 1 with use of the RE-AIM framework. Sustained PAPT is measured in Years 3 & 4.

Table 1

Program results presented with RE-AIM in the initial year and sustained over 3–4 years.
	First year of PAPT	Sustained PAPT
Reach
Access to PAPT	28 PAPT users	110 total PAPT users^b 84 new PAPT users^b
Effectiveness (program)
Program benefit (median)	9/10 from survey respondents	9/10 from survey respondents^a
Effectiveness (clinical)
Self-report increase in exercise	70%	64%^a
Adoption
Clinics	1 clinic	3 clinics^b
Total therapists	2 PTs	10 PTs trained over the project 6 PTs in practice^b
Total referrers	4	15^b
Implementation Fidelity
PAPT Carepath use	86%	84%^a
Maintenance
Average NHS Sustainability Model score	Not applicable	71/100 (range = 57.3–81)^b
Average Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool score	Not applicable	6.1/7 (range = 5.7–6.5)^b
NOTES: ^a Year 3; ^b Year 4

The PAPT program reach increased over the first 4 years and is presented in Fig. 1. Comparing demographics between Y1 and Y3, the PAPT users have similar age, sex, Hoehn & Yahr stage of PD, time since diagnosis and insurance [Table 2]. However, in Y3 the program reached individuals with a worse Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor disease severity score and longer time since symptom onset.

Table 2

Demographics and clinical characteristics of Proactive Physical Therapy Users in Years 1 & 3.
	Year 1 (n = 28)	Year 3 (n = 62)	t-value or X² (DF)	p-value ^a
Age [mean years (SD)]	65.1 (11.2)	65.8 (9.1)	t (88 DF) = -0.30,	p = 0.761
Male, [n (%)]	16 (57%)	37 (59%)	X² (1 DF) = 0.05	p = 0.821
UPDRS [mean (SD)]	16.2 (6.8)	23.2 (12.0)	t (50.7 DF) = -2.78	p = 0.0076
Missing	0	30
Hoehn & Yahr Stage			X² (2 DF) = 1.75	p = 0.418
1	5 (18%)	9 (15%)
2	23 (82%)	23 (37%)
3	0 (0%)	1 (2%)
Missing	0 (%)	29 (47%)
Time since diagnosis			X² (4 DF) = 9.25	p = 0.055
< 1 month	14 (50%)	12 (19%)
1–6 months	4 (14%)	19 (31%)
6–12 months	4 (14%)	8 (13%)
1–2 years	3 (11%)	7 (11%)
2 + years	3 (11%)	13 (21%)
Missing	0 (0%)	3 (5%)
Time since Symptoms			X² (3 DF) = 9.06	p = 0.029
< 1 month	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
1–6 months	5 (18%)	1 (2%)
6–12 months	5 (18%)	11 (18%)
1–2 years	5 (18%)	20 (32%)
2 + years	13 (46%)	23 (37%)
Missing	0 (0%)	7 (11%)
Insurance			X² (2 DF) = 1.14	p = 0.565
Medicare	15 (54%)	29 (47%)
Blue Cross Blue Shield	9 (32%)	18 (29%)
Other	4 (14%)	15 (26%)
^a Missing data excluded from analyses.

Quality improvement phone calls measuring sustained program effectiveness were completed in 71% of 28 users in Y1 and 53% of 62 new users in Y3 (χ²_df=2 = 2.64, p = 0.104). The proportion of individuals in Y1 and Y3 with self-reported increased or maintained exercise is presented in Table 1 and was found to be not different between the years studied (Fig. 2; χ²_df=2 = 0.228, p = 0.3283).There was increased adoption by outpatient clinics, physical therapists, and referrers (Table 1). Furthermore, the four initial referrers increased their overall PT referrals (PAPT program and other PT) from 115 referrals in the 2016 fiscal year to 167 in the 2019 fiscal year, a 45% increase. In the same period, the referring clinic grew approximately 11% year-over-year (approximately 37% over 4 years), suggesting that PT referrals increased beyond volume-based growth. At the level of the PAPT user, the proportion of referred individuals who completed a PAPT evaluation improved from 74% in Y1 to 84% in Y4. Finally, 37 of all 135 unique PAPT users (27%) have adopted the long-term follow-up model, defined as attending at least one return episode.

Implementation fidelity, assessed by the proportion of PAPT users who required just 1–4 visits in accordance with the original PAPT care path (4), was similar in Y1 and Y3 (χ²_df=2 = 0.55, p = 0.760). Similarly, clinicians documented explicit aerobic exercise prescription during the initial PAPT visit in 79% of Y1 participants and 87% of Y3 participants (χ²_df=1 = 1.07, p = 0.302).

Program maintenance was measured using two sustainability assessments. All individuals who were sent a request for the NHS Sustainability Model completed the survey and all but two referrers completed the CSAT. The average NHS Sustainability score 71/100 and the average CSAT score was 6.1/7. Specific category scores are presented in Table 3. Perfect scores were reported in in two NHS sustainability factors: “clinical leadership engagement and support” and “fit with the organizational culture.”

Table 3

Sustainability scores from stakeholders using the NHS Sustainability Model and Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT).
Scale and Factor/Domain	Average Rating (range)
Staff & Stakeholders
NHS: Clinical Leadership engagement	15/15
NHS: Staff Involvement and training to sustain the process	8.6/11.4 (0-11.4)
NHS: Senior leadership engagement	8.2/15 (5.7–15)
NHS: Staff behaviors toward sustaining the change	6.6/11 (5.1–11)
CSAT: Engaged staff & leadership	6.5/7 (6.0–7.0)
CSAT: Engaged Stakeholders	6.3/7 (5.6-7.0)
Organization
NHS: Fit with the organization's strategic aims and culture	7/7
NHS: Infrastructure for sustainability	4.5/9.5 (0-9.5)
CSAT: Organizational Readiness	5.9/7 (4.6–6.6)
Process & Outcomes
NHS: Credibility of the benefits	7.7/9.1 (6.3–9.1)
NHS: Effectiveness of the system to monitor progress	4.7/6.5 (2.4–6.5)
NHS: Adaptability of improved process	4.3/7 (3.4-7)
NHS: Benefits beyond helping patients	4.5/8.5 (0-8.5)
CSAT: Outcomes & Effectiveness	6.5/7 (5.8-7.0)
CSAT: Implementation & Training	6.0/7 (4.8-7.0)
CSAT: Workflow Integration	5.9/7 (4.4-7.0)
CSAT: Monitoring & Evaluation	5.7/7 (4.4-7.0)

Several sustainability definitions, frameworks, and assessments have emerged recently (10, 17-19). Yet, application barriers exist due to the diversity of implemented programs and changing needs of organizations and staff (20, 21). In Figure 3, we depict the integration of sustainability tools with our implementation process, determinants, and outcomes frameworks. The effort to identify dynamic, adaptable implementation strategies early in the implementation process using the DSF helped prepare for success despite typical and atypical healthcare setting changes (9). Although formal sustainability assessments were not completed until year four in this project, repetition of evaluative tools is recommended (e.g. RE-AIM) (22) and using sustainability assessments, (e.g. CSAT & the NHS Sustainability Model) to promote a program’s sustained effectiveness.

Use of existing sustainability frameworks aids in identifying and addressing sustainability barriers. Changing barriers over time could result in “program drift,” or deviation from the program’s original aims (9). The DSF promotes the maintenance of high fidelity interventions through identification of adaptable implementation strategies (9). In this study, a facilitator worked closely with trained, clinical champions at each site who monitored and led program adaptations. The champion meetings, continued adaptations of clinical tools, and electronic resources for PAPT users were sustained through healthcare staffing changes (including champion transitions), as well as less common changes such as moving facilities and a pandemic. At one clinic, the champion had autonomy to create a tracking system to address a process sustainability barrier. At the other site, the champion trained an additional therapist and educated the clinical-team due to staff sustainability barriers. Use of evaluative sustainment frameworks and assessments enabled the appraisal of ongoing implementation strategies and further tailor to site-specific needs. After administering the CSAT & the NHS Sustainability Model, the facilitator could assist the sites to identify adaptations to meet their site-specific sustainability barriers.

This program evaluation uniquely focuses on sustainability of a clinical program targeting an outpatient physical rehabilitation setting. In two recent reviews on program sustainability, none occurred in similar departments (20, 23). However, in one quasi-experimental study, behavior change strategies were implemented in a PT clinic with good uptake during the intervention, but poor sustainment at the three, six, or twelve-month follow up (24). Our sustained implementation strategies using the EMR, centralizing education, and programmatic support of a facilitator and champions have helped this program to be successful for more than four years.

High demand from stakeholders, including referrers, patients, therapists, and managers, led to the spread of PAPT through our regional system of care. PAPT program growth was associated with minor population changes in the PAPT program (Table 2), and increased PT referrals from the initial referrers, which may help to address the PT referral and utilization gap noted in the health services literature (2). Adoption at new sites was accompanied by site-specific processes and implementation strategies that have been essential for the success in unique contexts.

Unintentional spread also occurred through adoption of the proactive, consultative care model by speech and occupational therapy for people with PD, as well as for other patient diagnoses, like Huntington’s disease. Data from these clinical areas were excluded from this analysis, but are well supported in the literature and bolstered PAPT sustainability (25-28). Organization leaders were empowered to lead these new programs by adapting the implementation strategies associated with the success of PAPT.

Two limitations include the lack of generalizability of retrospective quality improvement data and lack of well-studied sustainability measures. The use of retrospective measurement in a single health system limits generalizability to other organizations. However, documenting strategies to spread from academic to community clinics may be impactful in similar contexts. The retrospective methods also present challenges such as inability to control potential confounding factors, including new, leadership positions within the organization. The second limitation is that the existing sustainability measures have limited reliability and validity data (11, 12). Implementation practitioners should consider using new sustainability tools as they are validated (21). Nevertheless, our research team felt that the chosen assessment tools provided valuable information for program sustainment.

Demonstrating the application of sustainability frameworks has implications for implementation practice and research. Figure 3 summarizes the process for integrating sustainability principles during implementation. Key features are identifying and addressing sustainment early, repeating implementation evaluations over time, and completing sustainability assessments. More research is needed to understand the complexities of sustainability. Systematic implementation research studies should measure the benefits of assessing and addressing sustainability at different implementation stages.

We integrated sustainability into implementation frameworks to assist with creating a resilient program and to provide a tool to improve program development. Attention to sustainability when selecting adaptable implementation strategies, repeated evaluation, and sustainability assessments successfully assisted with the four-year sustainment of the PAPT program.

PAPT: Proactive Physical Therapy

PT: Physical Therapy

PD: Parkinson’s disease

KTA: Knowledge-to-Action (Cycle)

CFIR: Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

RE-AIM: Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation Fidelity, Maintenance

CSAT: Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool

DSF: Dynamic Sustainability Framework

EMR: Electronic Medical Record

Y1: Year 1

Y3: Year 3

Y4: Year 4

UPDRS: United Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale

Ethical considerations: Northwestern University Institutional Review Board determined that this EMR data extraction and semi-structured interviews in Y1 and Y3 were determined to be not research involving human subjects. Data from all sources was collected and maintained using clinical quality improvement and HIPAA compliant methods. We report based on guidelines of the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) standards (29) in Additional file 2.

Consent for Publication: Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials: The datasets generated by the current study are not publicly available, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Funding: This work was supported by the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy, Knowledge Translation Grant Program 2017-2019. The initial work was supported by a Care Improvement Initiative Award through the Northwestern University Parkinson’s Foundation Center of Excellence (2017-2018). Use of REDCap was supported by the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Science (NUCATS) Institute (National Institutes of Health's National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Grant Number UL1TR001422). MR was supported the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (F32HS025077) and the Foundation for Physical Therapy (NIFTI 2016-2018). The opinions expressed here are the opinions of the authors and not the funding sources.

Competing Interests: Three of the authors are paid salary by the organization where the work occurred.

Authors Contributions: Planning and preparation completed by MRR, JM, and LD. Facilitation, EMR and qualitative data were collected by JM. Project development and mentorship by JLM.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank the leaders at the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab. Thanks to Alan Sadural, Ella Nettnin and Laura Stoff for assistance with EMR and qualitative data, as well as statistics. Thanks to Shari Marchbanks PT, DPT, Jennifer Goldman, the Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders program leaders, clinical managers and champions of the program Akilah Townsend, Camilo Evangelista, and Laura Sloan.

Keus S, Munneke M, Graziano M, Paltamaa J, Pelosin E, Domingos J, et al. European physiotherapy guideline for Parkinson’s disease. The Netherlands: KNGF/ParkinsonNet. 2014.
Fullard ME, Thibault DP, Hill A, Fox J, Bhatti DE, Burack MA, et al. Utilization of rehabilitation therapy services in Parkinson disease in the United States. Neurology. 2017;89(11):1162-9.
Rafferty M, Roberts A, Schmidt PN, Luo ST, Li K, Simuni T. NIDILRR: Allied Health Referral Variability and Outcomes for People with Parkinson’s Disease: National Parkinson Foundation Quality Improvement Initiative (NPF-QII) Data. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2016;97(10):e11.
Rafferty MR, MacDonald J, Byskosh A, Sloan L, Toledo S, Marciniak C, et al. Using Implementation Frameworks to Provide Proactive Physical Therapy for People With Parkinson Disease: Case Report. Phys Ther. 2019;99(12):1644-55.
Graham ID LJ, Harrison MB, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13-24.
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation science : IS. 2009;4:50.
Gaglio B, Shoup JA, Glasgow RE. The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. American journal of public health. 2013;103(6):e38-46.
Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and policy in mental health. 2011;38(1):4-23.
Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation science : IS. 2013;8:117.
Moore JE, Mascarenhas A, Bain J, Straus SE. Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability. Implementation science : IS. 2017;12(1):110.
Maher L GD, Evans A. A sustainability model and guide. NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement.2010 [Available from: www.institute.nhs.uk/sustainability.
Luke DA, Malone, S., Prewitt, K., Hackett, R., Lin, J. The Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT): assessing sustainability in clinical medicine settings. 2018.
Côté-Boileau É, Denis JL, Callery B, Sabean M. The unpredictable journeys of spreading, sustaining and scaling healthcare innovations: a scoping review. Health research policy and systems. 2019;17(1):84.
Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation science : IS. 2015;10:21.
Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implementation science : IS. 2015;10:109.
Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, Batalden P, Davidoff F, Stevens D. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ quality & safety. 2016;25(12):986-92.
Doyle C, Howe C, Woodcock T, Myron R, Phekoo K, McNicholas C, et al. Making change last: applying the NHS institute for innovation and improvement sustainability model to healthcare improvement. Implementation science : IS. 2013;8:127.
Hailemariam M, Bustos T, Montgomery B, Barajas R, Evans LB, Drahota A. Evidence-based intervention sustainability strategies: a systematic review. Implementation science : IS. 2019;14(1):57.
Nadalin Penno L, Davies B, Graham ID, Backman C, MacDonald I, Bain J, et al. Identifying relevant concepts and factors for the sustainability of evidence-based practices within acute care contexts: a systematic review and theory analysis of selected sustainability frameworks. Implementation science : IS. 2019;14(1):108.
Shelton RC, Cooper BR, Stirman SW. The Sustainability of Evidence-Based Interventions and Practices in Public Health and Health Care. Annual review of public health. 2018;39:55-76.
Palinkas LA, Chou CP, Spear SE, Mendon SJ, Villamar J, Brown CH. Measurement of sustainment of prevention programs and initiatives: the sustainment measurement system scale. Implementation science : IS. 2020;15(1):71.
Shelton RC, Chambers DA, Glasgow RE. An Extension of RE-AIM to Enhance Sustainability: Addressing Dynamic Context and Promoting Health Equity Over Time. Frontiers in public health. 2020;8:134.
Braithwaite J, Ludlow K, Testa L, Herkes J, Augustsson H, Lamprell G, et al. Built to last? The sustainability of healthcare system improvements, programmes and interventions: a systematic integrative review. BMJ open. 2020;10(6):e036453.
Fritz J, Wallin L, Söderlund A, Almqvist L, Sandborgh M. Implementation of a behavioral medicine approach in physiotherapy: impact and sustainability. Disability and rehabilitation. 2019:1-8.
Keus S MM, Graziano M, et al. . European Physiotherapy Guideline for Parkinson's disease. KNGF/ParkinsonNet. 2014.
Quinn L, Hamana K, Kelson M, Dawes H, Collett J, Townson J, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of a multi-modal exercise intervention in Huntington's disease. Parkinsonism & related disorders. 2016;31:46-52.
Quinn L, Kegelmeyer D, Kloos A, Rao AK, Busse M, Fritz NE. Clinical recommendations to guide physical therapy practice for Huntington disease. Neurology. 2020;94(5):217-28.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Non-pharmacological management of motor and non-motor symptoms: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2017 [Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng71/chapter/Recommendations#non-pharmacological-management-of-motor-and-non-motor-symptoms.
Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, Batalden P, Davidoff F, Stevens D. Squire 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised Publication Guidelines From a Detailed Consensus Process. American Journal of Critical Care. 2015;24(6):466-73.

Additionalfile1.pdf
Additional file 1: Initial and sustained implementation strategies. Strategies organized via Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change framework (Waltz et al. 2015, Powell et al. 2015) Strategies bolded are those that continue within the organization. Strategies not applied are not included in this table.
Additionalfile2.pdf
Additional file 2: SQUIRE.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Reject and transfer
05 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned by journal
04 Jan, 2021
Submission checks completed at journal
04 Jan, 2021
Editor invited by journal
04 Jan, 2021
First submitted to journal
03 Jan, 2021

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Sustainment of Proactive Physical Therapy for Individuals With Early-Stage Parkinson’s Disease: A Quality Improvement Study Over 4 Years

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Contribution To The Literature

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1