Jones L1,2, Heng H3, Heywood S4, Kent S5, Amir L2,6
1Singapore Institute of Technology, Physiotherapy, Singapore, Singapore, 2La Trobe University, Judith Lumley Centre, Melbourne, Australia, 3Northern Health, Physiotherapy, Melbourne, Australia, 4St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Physiotherapy, Melbourne, Australia, 5La Trobe University, Psychology and Public Health, Melbourne, Australia, 6Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
Background: Clinicians working with people suffering pain need to consider a biopsychosocial paradigm and be familiar with contemporary concepts of pain. Evidence suggests health professionals, including physiotherapists, require a change to their approach to better manage pain. The Pain and Movement Reasoning Model was developed as a tool to assist physiotherapists capture the complexity of pain in clinical assessment and decision-making. As part of a larger project exploring the utility of the Model, an education intervention was developed to introduce learners to the Model and the concepts that underpin it.
Purpose: This presentation will focus on the development of the intervention including the supporting education theory, the delivery which blended online, face-to-face and self-directed learning approaches, and some of the feedback that participants offered on the different stages of the education process.
Methods: The education intervention was delivered to physiotherapists working across a number of sites and in a range of clinical areas and so involved co-design with staff at the clinical sites. The delivery of the education package consisted of four stages - a face-to-face component (1 x 30 minutes), two online components (2 x 30 minutes) and a consolidation phase of approximately 5 weeks where participants used the Pain and Movement Reasoning Model as part of a Pain Reasoning Record. The online learning included text and videos constructed with a University-licensed programme. Links to online learning were sent to participants' staff email account. The first online resource introduced current concepts of pain and was accessible before the face-to-face session (i.e., flipped classroom approach). The second online resource focused on application of concepts in clinical decision-making and was accessible after the face-to-face session. Focus groups and interviews were conducted to evaluate the education package as part of the larger project.
Results: Seventy physiotherapists at six sites across two public hospital networks in Melbourne, Australia, were recruited to the study. Eight did not submit post-intervention responses (dropout rate of 11.4%). Thirty-one participants had less than 5 years' experience in clinical practice. The predominant clinical area of practice was musculoskeletal (n=30), followed by neurology (n=13). Most participants reported some prior formal pain education, but 20 participants (32%) reported none. Two participants had completed a pain-specific postgraduate qualification. Fifteen separate face-to-face sessions were required to accommodate participant availability including six one-to-one sessions. Feedback by participants on the education process was positive with favourable comments on content, accessibility, duration and the opportunity to consolidate. Some participants wanted more time, felt some resources could be enhanced and had minor issues with technology.
Conclusion(s): The learning process was easily accessible, offered blended modalities of delivery and a reflective or consolidation phase, and was well received by physiotherapists.
Implications: Delivery of education in the clinical workplace requires local co-ordination and some flexibility from the educator. There are both challenges and opportunities for delivering evidence-based education to clinicians with a busy workload.
Keywords: Blended learning, clinical reasoning, pain education
Funding acknowledgements: This project was supported by internal funding from La Trobe University's Social Research Assistance Platform.
Purpose: This presentation will focus on the development of the intervention including the supporting education theory, the delivery which blended online, face-to-face and self-directed learning approaches, and some of the feedback that participants offered on the different stages of the education process.
Methods: The education intervention was delivered to physiotherapists working across a number of sites and in a range of clinical areas and so involved co-design with staff at the clinical sites. The delivery of the education package consisted of four stages - a face-to-face component (1 x 30 minutes), two online components (2 x 30 minutes) and a consolidation phase of approximately 5 weeks where participants used the Pain and Movement Reasoning Model as part of a Pain Reasoning Record. The online learning included text and videos constructed with a University-licensed programme. Links to online learning were sent to participants' staff email account. The first online resource introduced current concepts of pain and was accessible before the face-to-face session (i.e., flipped classroom approach). The second online resource focused on application of concepts in clinical decision-making and was accessible after the face-to-face session. Focus groups and interviews were conducted to evaluate the education package as part of the larger project.
Results: Seventy physiotherapists at six sites across two public hospital networks in Melbourne, Australia, were recruited to the study. Eight did not submit post-intervention responses (dropout rate of 11.4%). Thirty-one participants had less than 5 years' experience in clinical practice. The predominant clinical area of practice was musculoskeletal (n=30), followed by neurology (n=13). Most participants reported some prior formal pain education, but 20 participants (32%) reported none. Two participants had completed a pain-specific postgraduate qualification. Fifteen separate face-to-face sessions were required to accommodate participant availability including six one-to-one sessions. Feedback by participants on the education process was positive with favourable comments on content, accessibility, duration and the opportunity to consolidate. Some participants wanted more time, felt some resources could be enhanced and had minor issues with technology.
Conclusion(s): The learning process was easily accessible, offered blended modalities of delivery and a reflective or consolidation phase, and was well received by physiotherapists.
Implications: Delivery of education in the clinical workplace requires local co-ordination and some flexibility from the educator. There are both challenges and opportunities for delivering evidence-based education to clinicians with a busy workload.
Keywords: Blended learning, clinical reasoning, pain education
Funding acknowledgements: This project was supported by internal funding from La Trobe University's Social Research Assistance Platform.
Topic: Education; Education: clinical; Pain & pain management
Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: Austin Health
Ethics committee: Human Research Ethics Committee
Ethics number: HREC/17/Austin/105
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
