Sarah Plant1,2, Sarah F Tyson1,2. 1. 1 Stroke Research Centre, The University of Manchester and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK. 2. 2 Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe goal-setting during inpatient stroke rehabilitation. DESIGN: There were two stages: an electronic questionnaire for multidisciplinary teams and an analysis of goal-setting documentation for rehabilitation patients. SETTING: Five inpatient stroke units. PARTICIPANTS: Staff involved in goal-setting and patients undergoing stroke rehabilitation. RESULTS: A total of 13 therapists and 49 patients were recruited, and 351 documented goals were examined. All units used therapist-led goal-setting (60% of goals were set by therapists). In total, 72% of goals were patient-focused but patients and families were rarely directly involved. Goals focussed on basic mobility and activities of daily living (~50% and ~25% of goals, respectively). Only 41% of documented goals met the SMART criteria. Review of progress was limited: 48% of goals were never reviewed and 24% of the remainder were merely marked as 'ongoing' without a date or plan for completion. New goals and actions were often documented without any connection to previous goals. Integration between goals and treatment/action plans was mixed. In two units, goals were unconnected to a treatment or action plan, but for the remainder it was 90%-100%. However, that connection was generally vague and amounted to suggestions of the type of treatment modality that staff might employ. CONCLUSION: Goal-setting during inpatient stroke rehabilitation is therapist-led but discussed with the multidisciplinary team. Therapists mainly identified patient-focussed mobility and activities of daily living goals. Monitoring progress and revising goals were often uncompleted. Links between goals and treatment, action plans and progress were patchy.
OBJECTIVE: To describe goal-setting during inpatient stroke rehabilitation. DESIGN: There were two stages: an electronic questionnaire for multidisciplinary teams and an analysis of goal-setting documentation for rehabilitation patients. SETTING: Five inpatient stroke units. PARTICIPANTS: Staff involved in goal-setting and patients undergoing stroke rehabilitation. RESULTS: A total of 13 therapists and 49 patients were recruited, and 351 documented goals were examined. All units used therapist-led goal-setting (60% of goals were set by therapists). In total, 72% of goals were patient-focused but patients and families were rarely directly involved. Goals focussed on basic mobility and activities of daily living (~50% and ~25% of goals, respectively). Only 41% of documented goals met the SMART criteria. Review of progress was limited: 48% of goals were never reviewed and 24% of the remainder were merely marked as 'ongoing' without a date or plan for completion. New goals and actions were often documented without any connection to previous goals. Integration between goals and treatment/action plans was mixed. In two units, goals were unconnected to a treatment or action plan, but for the remainder it was 90%-100%. However, that connection was generally vague and amounted to suggestions of the type of treatment modality that staff might employ. CONCLUSION: Goal-setting during inpatient stroke rehabilitation is therapist-led but discussed with the multidisciplinary team. Therapists mainly identified patient-focussed mobility and activities of daily living goals. Monitoring progress and revising goals were often uncompleted. Links between goals and treatment, action plans and progress were patchy.
Authors: Ida M H Borgen; Solveig L Hauger; Marit V Forslund; Ingerid Kleffelgård; Cathrine Brunborg; Nada Andelic; Unni Sveen; Helene L Søberg; Solrun Sigurdardottir; Cecilie Røe; Marianne Løvstad Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Helen Rodgers; Helen Bosomworth; Hermano I Krebs; Frederike van Wijck; Denise Howel; Nina Wilson; Tracy Finch; Natasha Alvarado; Laura Ternent; Cristina Fernandez-Garcia; Lydia Aird; Sreeman Andole; David L Cohen; Jesse Dawson; Gary A Ford; Richard Francis; Steven Hogg; Niall Hughes; Christopher I Price; Duncan L Turner; Luke Vale; Scott Wilkes; Lisa Shaw Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Catherine Cooper Hay; Monique R Pappadis; Angelle M Sander; Susan C Weller; Wanyi Wang; Timothy A Reistetter Journal: Top Stroke Rehabil Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 2.177
Authors: Judith D M Vloothuis; Marijn Mulder; Rinske H M Nijland; Quirine S Goedhart; Manin Konijnenbelt; Henry Mulder; Cees M P M Hertogh; Maurits van Tulder; Erwin E H van Wegen; Gert Kwakkel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stefania Fugazzaro; Monica Denti; Monia Allisen Accogli; Stefania Costi; Donatella Pagliacci; Simona Calugi; Enrica Cavalli; Mariangela Taricco; Roberta Bardelli Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Helen Bosomworth; Helen Rodgers; Lisa Shaw; Leanne Smith; Lydia Aird; Denise Howel; Nina Wilson; Natasha Alvarado; Sreeman Andole; David L Cohen; Jesse Dawson; Cristina Fernandez-Garcia; Tracy Finch; Gary A Ford; Richard Francis; Steven Hogg; Niall Hughes; Christopher I Price; Laura Ternent; Duncan L Turner; Luke Vale; Scott Wilkes; Hermano I Krebs; Frederike van Wijck Journal: Clin Rehabil Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 3.477