Search

Quality improvement in health care is the responsibility of everyone (eg, patients, families, health providers, and administrative staff) to work toward delivering high-quality patient care, advancing professional knowledge and skills, and creating effective and efficient processes of care. Those involved in athletic health care, similar to other health care professionals, should strive to create patient care experiences that are safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient centered. Exploring the differences between quality improvement and research will help define the focus of improvement sciences on the health of systems, which is to identify quality gaps and evaluate processes of care, as opposed to filling knowledge gaps. Furthermore, considering the principles of quality improvement will set the foundation for quality initiatives in health care to focus on patients, value teams, emphasize systems and processes of care, appreciate variability, and require data. With a greater understanding of the principles of the quality improvement sciences, athletic trainers will be better positioned to create a culture of quality improvement and to take the initiative in leading improvement efforts so that local systems support the delivery of high-quality patient care., (© by the National Athletic Trainers' Association, Inc.)

Context: Little is known about non-time-loss (NTL) injury patterns in basketball athletes. Knowledge of these patterns may aid in the development of prevention and management strategies for patients with these injuries., Objective: To describe the epidemiology of time-loss (TL) and NTL injuries sustained by secondary school boys' and girls' basketball athletes., Design: Descriptive epidemiology study., Setting: Eighty-six unique schools provided data, with 84 and 83 contributing to boys' and girls' basketball, respectively., Patients or Other Participants: Athletes participating in secondary school-sponsored boys' and girls' basketball., Main Outcome Measure(s): Boys' and girls' basketball data from the National Athletic Treatment, Injury and Outcomes Network (NATION) injury-surveillance program (2011-2012 through 2013-2014 years) were analyzed. Injury counts, rates, and rate ratios (IRRs) were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: The NATION captured 2653 injuries over 364 355 athlete-exposures (AEs) for boys' basketball and 2394 injuries over 288 286 AE for girls' basketball, producing rates of 7.28/1000 AEs (95% CI = 7.00, 7.56) for boys and 8.30/1000 AEs (95% CI = 7.97, 8.64) for girls. The overall injury rates were slightly lower for boys (IRR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.83, 0.93). For boys, 559 (21.1%) injuries were TL and 2094 (78.9%) were NTL, producing a TL injury rate of 1.53/1000 AEs (95% CI = 1.40, 1.66) and an NTL injury rate of 5.75/1000 AEs (95% CI = 5.50, 5.99). For girls, 499 (20.8%) injuries were TL and 1895 (79.2%) were NTL, producing a TL injury rate of 1.73/1000 AEs (95% CI = 1.58, 1.88) and an NTL injury rate of 6.57/1000 AEs (95% CI = 6.28, 6.87). Rates of TL injuries were similar between boys' and girls' basketball (IRR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.79, 1.00); NTL injury rates were lower for boys (IRR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.82, 0.93)., Conclusions: When NTL injuries were included, the rates of injury in boys' and girls' secondary school basketball were higher than previously reported.

Context: Gymnastics trains fundamental movement skills but has high rates of early sport specialization. Early specialization is associated with increased injury risk. Gymnasts devote time to developing technical skill, but whether specialization status influences performance is unknown., Objective: To describe the participation and specialization characteristics of youth club gymnastics participants and determine whether the level of specialization is associated with fitness and functional task performance., Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study., Setting: A single gymnastics facility., Patients or Other Participants: Data on youth gymnasts (n = 131; 84 females, 47 males; age = 10.9 ± 2.9 years, height = 142.14 ± 16.23 cm, mass = 38.15 ± 12.93 kg) were reviewed., Main Outcome Measure(s): Specialization was assessed using a 3-tiered classification. Fitness measurements consisted of the Gymnastics Functional Measurement Tool, Men's Gymnastics Functional Measurement Tool, and core strength. Functional tasks evaluated hop performance, dynamic balance, and jump-landing technique. Separate analyses of covariance, covaried by age, hours of training, and years of gymnastics participation, were used to identify differences in fitness and functional performance among specialization groups. Pearson product correlations were calculated to evaluate the relationships between training hours per week and years in gymnastics with fitness and functional performance., Results: Most gymnasts were classified as moderately (50.4%, n = 66) or highly (35.1%, n = 46) specialized. Only 14.5% (n = 19) were classified as having a low level of specialization. Weak to moderate correlations were present between years in gymnastics and most fitness tasks. Moderate to strong correlations were noted between training hours per week and most fitness tasks. Low-specialization gymnasts scored lower on right lower extremity Y-balance ( P = .004), upper left extremity Y-balance ( P = .033), and right hop performance ( P = .039) tests., Conclusions: Gymnasts reported high proportions of moderate to high specialization, and many exceeded guidelines for hours participating in gymnastics per week. We did not observe clinically meaningful group differences among specialization status and fitness or functional movement tasks, indicating no clear benefit of gymnastics training to the exclusion of other sports for increased performance.

Context: Current evidence suggests that a low percentage of athletic trainers (ATs) routinely use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). An understanding of the perceptions of ATs who use (AT-USE) and who do not use (AT-NON) PROMs as well as any differences due to demographic characteristics (eg, use for patient care or research, job setting, highest education level) may help facilitate the use of PROMs in athletic training., Objective: To describe commonly used PROMs by AT-USE, the criteria by which AT-USE select PROMs, and reasons for non-use by AT-NON., Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: Online survey., Patients or Other Participants: A convenience sample of 1784 ATs (response rate = 10.7% [1784/17972]; completion rate = 92.2% [1784/1935]) who worked in a variety of settings., Main Outcome Measure(s): Participants completed an anonymous electronic online survey. Descriptive statistics were used to describe commonly used PROMs, PROM selection criteria, and reasons for PROM non-use., Results: Participants were classified as AT-USE (n = 370, 20.7%) or AT-NON (n = 1414, 79.3%). For the AT-USE group, the most common type of PROMs used were specific (eg, region, joint; n = 328, 88.6%), followed by single-item (n = 258, 69.7%) and generic (n = 232, 62.7%). Overall, the PROMs most frequently endorsed by the AT-USE group were the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (n = 128, 34.6%); Lower Extremity Functional Scale (n = 108, 29.2%); Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (n = 96, 25.9%); Owestry Disability Index (n = 80, 21.6%); and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (n = 78, 21.1%). The most important criteria reported by AT-USE for selecting PROMs were that the measure was valid and reliable, easy for patients to understand, and easy for clinicians to understand and interpret. Common reasons for non-use were that PROMs were too time consuming for the clinician, too time consuming for the patient, and more effort than they were worth., Conclusions: The Numeric Pain Rating Scale; Lower Extremity Functional Scale; Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; Owestry Disability Index; and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure were the PROMs most commonly endorsed by AT-USE and should be considered for athletic training use. To further facilitate the use of PROMs in athletic training, future authors should identify strategies to address organizational and time-constraint obstacles. Interpretation of our study findings may require caution due to a relatively low response rate and because "routine use" was not operationalized.

Context: Athletic trainers (ATs) must be equipped with evidence to inform their clinical practice. A systematic, inclusive, and continuous process for exploring research priorities is vital to the success of ATs and, more importantly, their patients' positive outcomes., Objective: To identify research priorities and unify research with clinical practice to improve patient care and advance the profession., Design: Mixed-methods study., Setting: Focus groups and a Web-based survey., Patients or Other Participants: A total of 87 ATs (43 men [49.4%], 44 women [50.6%]; age = 40 ± 11 years; experience = 18 ± 11 years) participated in focus groups. Of the 49 332 e-mails sent, 580 were undeliverable, 5131 ATs started the survey (access rate = 10.5%), and 4514 agreed to participate (response rate = 9.3%)., Main Outcome Measure(s): Our study consisted of 6 focus-group sessions, a content-expert review, and a Web-based survey. Themes from the focus groups were used to develop the research priorities and survey instrument. We used the 25-item validated survey to determine whether the research priorities and findings of the focus groups were generalizable. Endorsement of research priorities and recommendations was achieved when respondents indicated they agreed or strongly agreed., Results: Respondents endorsed 5 research priorities: health care competency (n = 4438/4493, 98.8%), vitality of the profession (n = 4319/4455, 96.9%), health professions education (n = 3966/4419, 89.8%), health care economics (n = 4246/4425, 96.0%), and health information technology (n = 3893/4438, 87.7%). We also made the following recommendations: (1) develop funding initiatives that align with the agenda, (2) develop postdoctoral fellowships focused on clinical research, (3) facilitate collaborative relationships between clinicians and researchers, and (4) make research evidence more readily available and more applicable., Conclusions: Using a systematic and inclusive process, we developed a prioritized research agenda for the athletic training profession. The agenda was endorsed by the leaders of each Strategic Alliance organization and adopted as the Athletic Training Research Agenda.

Context: Typically, athletic trainers rely on clinician-centered measures to evaluate athletes' return-to-play status. However, clinician-centered measures do not provide information regarding patients' perceptions., Objective: To determine whether clinically important changes in patient-reported outcomes were observed from the time of lower extremity injury to the time of return to play in adolescent athletes., Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: The National Athletic Treatment, Injury and Outcomes Network (NATION) program has captured injury and treatment data in 31 sports from 147 secondary schools across 26 states. A subsample of 24 schools participated in the outcomes study arm during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 academic years., Patients or Other Participants: To be included in this report, student-athletes must have sustained a knee, lower leg, ankle, or foot injury that restricted participation from sport for at least 3 days. A total of 76 initial assessments were started by athletes; for 69 of those, return-to-play surveys were completed and analyzed., Main Outcome Measure(s): All student-athletes completed generic patient-reported outcome measures (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] survey, Global Rating of Change scale, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale) and, depending on body region, completed an additional region-specific measure (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score or Foot and Ankle Ability Measure). All applicable surveys were completed at both the initial and return-to-play time points. Means and standard deviations for the total scores of each patient-reported outcome measure at each time point were calculated. Change scores that reflected the difference from the initial to the return-to-play time points were calculated for each participant and compared with established benchmarks for change., Results: The greatest improvement in patient-reported outcomes was in the region-specific forms, with scores ranging from 9.92 to 37.73 on the different region-specific subscales (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score or Foot and Ankle Ability Measure; scores range from 0-100). The region-specific subscales on average still showed a 21.8- to 37.5-point deficit in reported health at return to play. The PROMIS Lower Extremity score increased on average by 13 points; all other PROMIS scales were within normative values after injury., Conclusions: Adolescent athletes who were injured at a high school with an athletic trainer may have shown improvement in patient-reported outcomes over time, but when they returned to play, their outcome scores remained lower than norms from comparable athlete groups.

Health care providers are encouraged to provide care according to practice recommendations because these suggestions should improve patient care and promote optimal patient outcomes. The goals of these practice recommendations are to improve patient care and promote optimal patient outcomes. However, without integration into clinical practice, the value of practice recommendations in supporting patient care is lost. Unfortunately, little is known about the success of integrating practice recommendations into clinical practice, and targeted efforts to promote integration are likely needed. Implementation research is a broad area of study that focuses on how guidelines, programs, or interventions are put into practice and delivered. The Translating Research Into Injury Prevention Practice (TRIPP) framework consists of 6 stages that support implementation science, and the framework has been used to assist in integrating injury-prevention programs into patient care. The structure of the TRIPP framework makes it applicable to other programs that would benefit from implementation science, including practice recommendations. Stages 5 and 6 of the TRIPP framework emphasize the need to explore the implementation context and factors related to uptake of a program by end users. This commentary highlights our efforts to use methods for implementation research to evaluate stage 5 of the TRIPP framework as it relates to acute care for patients with suspected spine injuries and provides 6 lessons learned that may assist in future efforts to better implement practice recommendations in patient care. Targeted efforts to assist clinicians in implementing practice recommendations may promote their use and ultimately enhance the care provided for patients with a variety of health conditions. An essential component of any implementation effort is understanding end users via stages 5 and 6 of the TRIPP framework, and this understanding may maximize knowledge translation and encourage practice change and advancement.

Context:   Quality improvement (QI) is a health care concept that ensures patients receive high-quality (safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, patient-centered) and affordable care. Despite its importance, the application of QI in athletic health care has been limited., Objectives:   To describe the need for and define QI in health care, to describe how to measure quality in health care, and to present a QI case in athletic training., Description:   As the athletic training profession continues to grow, a widespread engagement in QI efforts is necessary to establish the value of athletic training services for the patients that we serve. A review of the importance of QI in health care, historical perspectives of QI, tools to drive QI efforts, and examples of common QI initiatives is presented to assist clinicians in better understanding the value of QI for advancing athletic health care and the profession. Clinical and Research Advantages:  By engaging clinicians in strategies to measure outcomes and improve their patient care services, QI practice can help athletic trainers provide high-quality and affordable care to patients.

Context:   Patient-rated outcome measures (PROMs) capture changes that are important and meaningful to patients, such as health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Although group differences in HRQOL have been reported, little is known about the effect of injury history on HRQOL in collegiate athletes., Objective:   To determine whether knee-specific function (International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form [IKDC]) and HRQOL (Short Form 12 [SF-12]) differs in collegiate athletes based on sex and the severity of a previous knee injury., Design:   Cross-sectional study., Setting:   Athletic training facilities., Patients or Other Participants:   Healthy collegiate athletes (n = 263) were grouped based on self-report of a previous knee injury: severe (n = 47), mild (n = 40), and no (n = 176) knee injury., Intervention(s):   Participants completed the IKDC and SF-12 during their preparticipation examinations., Main Outcome Measure(s):   Generalized linear models were used to assess interactions and main effects of all scores., Results:   An interaction effect was observed for the SF-12 role physical subscale (P = .02), with men in the mild- and severe-injury groups reporting worse scores than men with no injury history. We noted a main effect for injury group for the IKDC total score (P < .001) and SF-12 physical functioning (P = .04) and role emotional (P = .04) subscales, with the severe-injury group reporting worse scores than the mild- and no-injury groups. No main effects of sex were reported (P > .05)., Conclusions:   Despite returning to full participation, collegiate athletes who previously sustained severe knee injuries tended to report worse knee-specific function and less ability to complete activities due to physical health. In addition, individuals with a history of severe knee injury tended to report more emotional concerns than athletes with a history of mild or no knee injury. Region-specific PROMs may be more sensitive in detecting deficits than generic PROMs after return to full participation. Researchers should investigate the role of PROMs, particularly region-specific PROMs, as potential screening tools for clinical care.