I do a ton of talks on stroke recovery. I come from the world of research. So my perspective is a bit different to the rehab clinicians I talk to. I do my best to ease them into the world of research. I explain where they can find leading edge stroke rehab info for themselves. I describe where we are in researching stroke recovery (not very far I’m afraid). I explain how the stuff from research can be used with their patients.
And there’s the rub. Therapists and other folks in rehab sometimes have a bit of difficulty imagining how to transfer the research to their practice.
"I'm in acute care (or skilled nursing, or an outpatient clinic, or in home care, or in long term care, etc.). I can't implement this stuff. It takes too much time (or we don't have the equipment, or don't know how to bill for it, or nursing won't follow through, etc.). This stuff can't be used on my patients because they're not motivated enough (or have too many other medical problems, or are too "low level", or are too old, etc.)"
The core concepts of relearning how to move after stroke are simple. These concepts don’t have to be done clinically the way they’re done in research. In fact, they are often more effective in the clinic. They may be more effective because clinicians can change the treatment to fit individual survivors. Research involves a one-size-fits-all implementation. Therapists can add and subtract, slow down and speed up, skip or add more treatments. In research all those screw up consistency.
Some therapists have no problem with implementing this stuff. Some go well beyond what I suggest. For instance, they may dovetail suggested treatment options in a mix that is beyond anything researched. (Note to clinicians who do this: make sure you use valid and reliable outcome measures to prove to yourself that these things work.)
Whats the difference between those who can and those who can't?
Will and imagination.
