Clinical Resources for Assessing Mobility of People with Lower-Limb Amputation: Interviews with Rehabilitation Clinicians.

Introduction: Mobility tests are increasingly used in prosthetic rehabilitation to evaluate patient outcomes. Knowledge of the space, equipment, and time resources available to clinicians who work in different settings can guide recommendations for which tests are most clinically-feasible and promote coordination of mobility testing among members of the rehabilitation team. The primary aim of this study was to characterize the different resources available to clinicians for measuring mobility of people with lower limb amputation. A secondary aim was to identify performance tasks that clinicians use to evaluate prosthetic mobility. Materials and methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with prosthetists, physical therapists, and physiatrists who treat people with lower limb amputation. Researchers used convenience and snowball sampling to identify participants. Interviews included questions about the resources available for conducting mobility tests, as well as questions about which tasks clinicians deemed valuable to assessing mobility of patients with lower limb amputation. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Summary and frequency statistics were calculated for quantitative data; explanatory comments were summarized.
Results: Interviews were conducted with 25 clinicians (8 prosthetists, 9 physical therapists, and 8 physiatrists). Participants had access to multiple spaces and basic measurement equipment. The maximum time participants were willing to spend on performance tests varied. Physiatrists reported less time available (median=10 minutes, range 5-30 minutes) than prosthetists and physical therapists (median=30 minutes, range 5-60 minutes for both professions). Mobility tasks commonly used to evaluate patients with lower limb amputation included sit-to-stand, standing balance, walking, and varying speed. Participant comments suggested that mobility tests need to be quick, simple, and add value; existing mobility tests are beneficial but challenging to incorporate into practice; mobility tests should reflect real-world activities; and technological advancements could improve mobility testing. Conclusions: Clinicians generally had small-to-medium spaces, basic measurement equipment, and sufficient training to administer mobility tests in their clinics. A limiting factor was time, which can be addressed through selection of efficient measures and collaboration within the rehabilitation team.