Search

To investigate the sustainability of Robot-assisted upper limb therapy (RT-UL) as part of routine occupational therapy and physiotherapy clinical practice. Two separate audits, 12 months apart, of RT-UL computer data records were undertaken to determine sustainability in a subacute rehabilitation unit. Records of the two audits were compared in terms of the number of early subacute stroke survivors using RT-UL, the number of RT-UL sessions, duration of RT-UL sessions, and disciplines prescribing RT-UL. During Audit 1 58% (n = 18) of stroke survivors received RT-UL compared to 50% (n = 7) in Audit 2. The total number of RT-UL sessions reduced between audits (148 vs. 36 sessions) reflecting the overall reduction in admission rates for stroke survivors. There was no significant difference between audits in the average number of RT-UL sessions per patient (p = 0.203) nor the length of sessions (p = 0.762). Patients engaged in active therapy more than three-quarters of the time when on the robotic device. Physiotherapists were the primary prescribers of RT-UL when compared to occupational therapists. RT-UL was in continued and regular use with stroke survivors 2 years after initial implementation within an inpatient rehabilitation setting. RT-UL practice was intensive and used routinely with patients. RT-UL is a sustainable and intensive intervention for stroke survivors within an inpatient rehabilitative setting. The cost-benefits of RT-UL should be evaluated from the perspective of the whole rehabilitation service not just at an individual patient level. RT-UL may be considered a "bridging" form of UL practice for those with more limited active UL movement until there is sufficient UL movement and power for more complex real-world task-specific practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Robot assisted upper limb (UL) therapy has been identified as an intervention with the potential to help improve the amount of practice performed by stroke survivors. This study aimed to measure the amount of UL practice (i.e., repetitions, duration, intensity) performed by subacute stroke survivors, in particular those with severe UL impairment, pre and post implementation of robot assisted upper limb therapy (RT-UL) into an inpatient rehabilitation setting. Two observational study phases (pre-RT-UL and post-RT-UL) were undertaken of occupational therapy and physiotherapy sessions performed by subacute stroke survivors. Upper limb tasks observed and recorded in therapy were classified as either impairment-related therapy or activity-related. In the pre-RT-UL observational phase, 7 subacute stroke survivors were observed across 11 days involving 25 therapy sessions. Post-RT-UL, 12 subacute stroke survivors were observed across 12 days involving 29 therapy sessions. There were no significant differences in characteristics of patients observed in each phase (p >.05). The mean difference (95% CI) between pre and post RT-UL for repetitions (reps) (569 (1 to 1136) and intensity (7 (4–11)) reps/min of practice increased for all patients, including those with severe UL impairment (337 (37–638)) reps and 8 (2–14) reps/minute, with the duration of therapy unchanged. This is the first study to have observed an increase in UL practice with the inclusion of RT-UL as part of routine clinical practice. This increase in practice is considered to be due to RT-UL providing highly supportive and expeditious semi-supervised practice. Notably, RT-UL was able to be implemented within the existing organisational structures with only basic training of therapy staff. Robotics presents as a viable intervention to increase the amount and intensity of upper limb practice performed by stroke survivors in routine clinical practice Robotics were able to be implemented within the existing organisational structures with only basic training of therapy staff [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Robot‐assisted therapy for the upper limb (RT‐UL) is an emerging form of intervention for stroke survivors with upper limb deficits. However, there is limited knowledge regarding therapists' perceptions of RT‐UL and the factors influencing the implementation of RT‐UL into the clinical setting. This is important when considering that therapists in Australia are primarily responsible for the prescription of RT‐UL in daily practice. This study aimed to explore occupational therapists' and physiotherapists' perceptions of RT‐UL and the perceived barriers and enablers influencing implementation. Methods: Two discipline‐specific focus groups were conducted involving occupational therapists (n = 6) and physiotherapists (n = 6). Participants were members of the same multidisciplinary team working in an Australian public health rehabilitation facility where RT‐UL (i.e. InMotion2) was being introduced for the first time. Focus groups explored therapist perceptions of the new RT‐UL as well as perceived barriers and enablers to implementation. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed and deductively analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Results: Out of the 14 domains of the TDF, 7 were raised by participants during the focus groups: environmental context and resources, beliefs about consequences, optimism, knowledge, skills, social influences, and social and professional role and identity. Therapists' expressed their optimism towards the introduction of RT‐UL but believed successful implementation would be primarily dependent on the availability of clinical leadership, training and a suitable client mix. Conclusion: Therapists perceived that RT‐UL would provide opportunity for increased upper limb practice particularly for patients with severe upper limb impairment. To facilitate implementation, support of RT‐UL should come from both management and clinical leaders and training include RT‐UL efficacy, device functionality and patient suitability. The availability of a single RT‐UL device in a workplace may create unique interdisciplinary and logistical challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]