A mixed-methods research approach to the review of competency standards for orthotist/prosthetists in Australia

Ash, Susan; O’Connor, Jackie; Anderson, Sarah; Ridgewell, Emily; Clarke, Leigh

doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000038

Cited by 20 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first adjustment related to the involvement of qualified prosthetists. At this stage, the PSPs’ scope of practice and activities were compliant with Australian competency standards for qualified prosthetists [ 62 ]. However, it is anticipated that prosthetists might become the ‘gate keeper’ for patients with a BAP, which could possibly put them in a more predominant case manager role.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a Procedure for the Government Provision of Bone-Anchored Prosthesis Using Osseointegration in Australia

Frossard

Merlo

Quincey³

et al. 2017

PharmacoEconomics Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGovernmental organizations are facing challenges in adjusting procedures providing equitable assistance to consumers with amputation choosing newly available osseointegrated fixations for bone-anchored prostheses (BAPs) over socket-suspended prostheses.ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to (1) present a procedure focusing on tasks, documents and costs of prosthetic care, and (2) share observed obstacles and facilitators to implementation.MethodsThis research aimed at developing a governmental procedure for the provision of BAPs was designed as an action research study. A total of 18 individuals with transfemoral amputation solely funded by a Queensland State organization were considered.ResultsThe procedure, developed between January 2011 and June 2015, included seven processes involving fixed expenses during treatment and five processes regulating ongoing prosthetic care expenses. Prosthetic care required 22 h of labor, corresponding to AUD$3300 per patient, during rehabilitation. Prosthetists spend 64 and 36% of their time focusing on prosthetic care and other activities, respectively. The procedure required adjustments related to the scope of practice of prosthetists, funding of prosthetic limbs during rehabilitation, and allocation of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. Approximately 41% (7) and 59% (10) of obstacles were within (e.g. streamlining systematic processes, sustaining evaluation of this complex procedure) or outside (e.g. early and consistent consultations of stakeholders, lack of a definitive rehabilitation program) governmental control, respectively, and approximately 89% (17) of the facilitators were within governmental control (e.g. adapting existing processes).ConclusionThis study provides a working plan to stakeholders developing and implementing policies around the care of individuals choosing osseointegration for BAPs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a Procedure for the Government Provision of Bone-Anchored Prosthesis Using Osseointegration in Australia

Frossard

Merlo

Quincey³

et al. 2017

PharmacoEconomics Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the 25 articles from 23 unique studies included in this analysis, four were mixed methods, 17,18,32,34 12 were quantitative, 21,22,25,26,29,31,32,[35][36][37][38]40 eight were qualitative, 19,20,23,27,30,33,39,41 and 1 used a purely qualitative survey. 24 Researcherdeveloped surveys, 17,18,[20][21][22]24,26,30,31,35,36,38,40 semi-structured interviews, 19,20,27,33,39,41 or Delphi methods 17,18,32,34 were used in most studies. Included studies represented a wide international breadth with multiple multi-country collaborations.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review in prosthetics and orthotics education research

McDonald

Kartin

Morgan

2020

Prosthetics &Amp; Orthotics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Formal prosthetic/orthotic education has evolved greatly since its inception in the 1950s. The International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics has established guidelines and recognition for prosthetic/orthotic programs worldwide. However, the current state-of-the-science in prosthetic/orthotic education is largely unknown. Objectives: To evaluate and synthesize available prosthetic/orthotic education research. Study design: Systematic review. Methods: Three bibliographic databases were searched and quality of included articles assessed using criteria from the National Institutes for Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort, Cross-Sectional Studies, and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Research Checklist, and Delphi quality criteria. Results: This review included 25 articles from 23 studies. Included studies explored description, development, implementation, and/or assessment of the teaching/learning methods, curriculum, program, or country/region level. Studies were conducted in 18 countries and published in 14 journals. Methodological quality was rated high in 6 articles, moderate in 6, and low in 13. Content synthesis was not attempted due to the heterogeneous literature. Conclusion: This systematic review suggests that prosthetic/orthotic education research is only being conducted at a limited level. There is a strong need for high quality, collaborative education research to be conducted and published in peer-reviewed journals to improve prosthetic/orthotic education and build a global conversation. Clinical relevance Research in prosthetic/orthotic education is limited. The current body of literature is not sufficient to inform and guide future education of prosthetic/orthotic students. Opportunities to improve prosthetic/orthotic education research include academic collaborations, a dedicated education special issue or journal, and disciplinary support for prosthetic/orthotic education research.

show abstract

“…Methods for developing and reviewing competency standards for health professionals have primarily relied on qualitative techniques, but used consensus development processes to refine and seek agreement on finalized standards (Young et al, 2000;Gardner et al, 2006;Hogan et al, 2010). Mixed methods have been advocated for use in competency development for their ability to explore as well as confirm issues under investigation (Ash et al, 2015). In dietetics, often single methodologies have been used to develop standards, drawing only on the perspectives of the profession (Wildish & Evers, 2010;Ash et al, 2011;Brody et al, 2012).…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The survey technique was used to gain consensus of opinion across a diverse geographical location and sought agreement on what constituted entry-level practice, based on the perspectives of a group of experts in dietetic education (De Villiers et al, 2005). A reactive Delphi survey is often used following other research methods and provides information to participants in the first round rather than initially exploring the issue without direction (Ash et al, 2015).…”

Section: Round Twomentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodology for developing competency standards for dietitians in Australia

Palermo

Conway

Beck

et al. 2016

Nursing & Health Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competency standards document the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required for competent performance. This study develops competency standards for dietitians in order to substantiate an approach to competency standard development. Focus groups explored the current and emerging purpose, role, and function of the profession, which were used to draft competency standards. Consensus was then sought using two rounds of a Delphi survey. Seven focus groups were conducted with 28 participants (15 employers/practitioners, 5 academics, 8 new graduates). Eighty-two of 110 invited experts participated in round one and 67 experts completed round two. Four major functions of dietitians were identified: being a professional, influencing the health of individuals, groups, communities, and populations through evidence-based nutrition practice, and working collaboratively in teams. Overall there was a high level of consensus on the standards: 93% achieved agreement by participants in round one and all revised standards achieved consensus on round 2. The methodology provides a framework for other professions wishing to embark on competency standard review or development.

show abstract

A mixed-methods research approach to the review of competency standards for orthotist/prosthetists in Australia

Cited by 20 publications

References 13 publications

Development of a Procedure for the Government Provision of Bone-Anchored Prosthesis Using Osseointegration in Australia

Development of a Procedure for the Government Provision of Bone-Anchored Prosthesis Using Osseointegration in Australia

A systematic review in prosthetics and orthotics education research

Methodology for developing competency standards for dietitians in Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About