Premium
Use of outcome measurement by paediatric AHPs in Northern Ireland
Author(s) -
Harron Anita,
Titterington Jill
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
international journal of language and communication disorders
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.101
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1460-6984
pISSN - 1368-2822
DOI - 10.1111/1460-6984.12224
Subject(s) - transtheoretical model , scale (ratio) , likert scale , psychology , medical education , service (business) , medicine , applied psychology , nursing , psychological intervention , developmental psychology , business , marketing , physics , quantum mechanics
Background Professional standards advocate routine use of outcome measurement (OM) in the practice of allied health professionals (AHPs). Historically, OM has focused on impairment and its immediate constraints on activity, while current policy encourages the development and addition of impact‐based OM. There appears to be an assumption at this stage of AHP development that the use of OM is well embedded into practice. However, there is no evidence to support this assumption, which leads to the current investigation into the overall readiness of paediatric AHPs—speech and language therapists (SLTs), occupational therapists (OTs) and physiotherapists (PTs)—to use OM. Aims To investigate the readiness of paediatric AHPs in the use of OM and to consider what influences this use. Methods & Procedures A total of 133 paediatric AHPs working in the National Health Service (NHS) in Northern Ireland completed the Clinician Readiness for Measuring Outcomes Scale (CReMOS). CReMOS's 26 statements are rated on a six‐point Likert scale identifying readiness to use OM based on the Transtheoretical Model of Change. Outcomes & Results While about 75% of clinicians were using OM, 25% require support to roll this out in their practice. This pattern was similar across the professions, and while the majority perceived the value of OM, several factors influenced their use. Conclusions & Implications Clinicians would benefit from protected time and support from experts/role models to promote and facilitate best practice in the use of OM. Furthermore, funding for AHP services based on measurable outcomes for service users would facilitate their use in practice. Further research teasing out the different types of OM and the supports and barriers to their use would be very valuable.