- Email: [email protected]
New Look Approval
167
Stroke Physiotherapy
-
MADAM We are glad of the Journal’s interest in the report Evaluation of Physiofherapy for People wifh Stroke (January. page 51) However I would like to have the opportunity to respond to and clarify. some of the points made by the reviewer 1
I t is said that the issue of
‘evaluation of physiotherapy is not addressed at all’ Page 1 of the introduction explains that a major factor impeding the evaluation of physiotherapy for stroke is the lack of appropriate measures of outcomes. backed up by five references (a full review was not considered appropriate in a report) The work is described (p 3) as a first stage in seeking to evaluate physiotherapy for stroke 2 The therapists involved are clearly of concern to the reviewer We were aware that many other therapists had wished to be involved. but the format on that day did not allow lor a larger group We certainly hope others will replicate the work to see i f similar results are obtained The workshop leaders were self selected, in that they came together because of their experience and interest in the area, and their willingness to spend a lot of their own time on preparatory work They represented variety in terms of research experience and clinical approaches The therapists who participated in the workshop were invited on the basis of being senior and experienced. were nominated by at least two others (mostly ACPlN members), they also represented a wide geographical spread. from Scotland. N Ireland. Wales, and the north. midlands. south. west and east of England Participants were also selected to obtain representation from different clinical approaches. as an integral part of the workshop was to find i f basic aims were similar across the different approaches 3 The proponents of each approach to the treatment of stroke tend to expound its differences (though they do in fact share many similarities (Partridge and De Weerdt. 1995) The purpose was to find i f therapists from a number of different approaches could agree on key outcomes related
to aims of treatment The extent 01 the consensus reached by participants was considered an important step in this difficult task. for any measures developed from this workshop are then applicable to most approaches currently in use in Britain 4 Patients and carers who took part
in the focus groups were asked if they wished to be part of the physiotherapy workshop, but they declined They said that they felt it easier to express their opinions in informal discussions without the physiotherapists present We did however have representation !rom the Stroke Association 5 The reviewer could find ‘nothing innovative in the material’ The organisers would have been alarmed if completely new aims of treatment, unrelated to the literature. had emerged The aim was to find the extent of agreement that could be reached on specific aims of treatment To the best of our knowledge we are not re-inventing the wheel, but introducing an approach which is novel in this area of work Peer group consensus among specialists provides a strong base and an important starting point The agreement on domains identified by patients and relatives relating to quality of physiotherapy services is also !ust a starting point for further work We produced the report because many of the participants and observers on the day asked us to do so
CeCily J Partridge PhD FCSP Canterbury
Reference Partridge. C J and De Weerdt. W (1995) Different approaches to physiotherapy for stroke’. Reviews m C/mca/ Gerontology. in press
New Look Approval
-
MADAM I am writing to congratulate you on the new Physiotherapy journal The layout is excellent. the division and variety of the articles well planned and interesting All-in-all it has made me more keen to read the journal through
Simon Purton BSc MCSP London N1
Chronic Pain Survey
-
MADAM A questionnaire designed to audit approaches to physiotherapy management of chronic pain patients was published in the November 1994 issue of Physrofherapy as a result of collaboration between the Rheumatic Care Association of Chartered Physiotherapists and the Association of Orthopaedic Chartered Physiotherapists We are still receiving entries and would like to remind all physiotherapists involved with patients with chronic pain to complete it i f they have not already done so It is not restricted to members of the Clinical Interest Groups which published it.
Jackie Waterfield MCSP Chronic Pain Working Party
Vienna Award TheViehyslcalMedicine Award is offered for an unpublished original scientific paper on any aspect of physical medicine in English. The prize of DM 1O.OOO plus travel subsidy up to DM 1,ooO is offered annually by Zimmer Electromedizin GmbH of NeuUlm. Germany, through the chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation, University of v i n e , Aushia. It is open to all academic scientists working in physiil mediine or related fields.
papersmstbenokngerthan ~typedpeges~enonymaus. A separate sheet should carry the name and address of the author($)with s h o R CV(s) and
stat-that the- *an authorandagreestoputJicetion of the manuscript. The closing ctateSAugMt 1,1995.Anawd ceremony will be held in V i on a date whiih is still to be announced.
Entries and all correspondence should be addressed to DO2 Dr V Fialka, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Wahrirgw, m e 4 1G20.AKH. 1090-
Austria.
Physiotherapy.March 1995. vol81. no3
Stroke Physiotherapy
-
MADAM We are glad of the Journal’s interest in the report Evaluation of Physiofherapy for People wifh Stroke (January. page 51) However I would like to have the opportunity to respond to and clarify. some of the points made by the reviewer 1
I t is said that the issue of
‘evaluation of physiotherapy is not addressed at all’ Page 1 of the introduction explains that a major factor impeding the evaluation of physiotherapy for stroke is the lack of appropriate measures of outcomes. backed up by five references (a full review was not considered appropriate in a report) The work is described (p 3) as a first stage in seeking to evaluate physiotherapy for stroke 2 The therapists involved are clearly of concern to the reviewer We were aware that many other therapists had wished to be involved. but the format on that day did not allow lor a larger group We certainly hope others will replicate the work to see i f similar results are obtained The workshop leaders were self selected, in that they came together because of their experience and interest in the area, and their willingness to spend a lot of their own time on preparatory work They represented variety in terms of research experience and clinical approaches The therapists who participated in the workshop were invited on the basis of being senior and experienced. were nominated by at least two others (mostly ACPlN members), they also represented a wide geographical spread. from Scotland. N Ireland. Wales, and the north. midlands. south. west and east of England Participants were also selected to obtain representation from different clinical approaches. as an integral part of the workshop was to find i f basic aims were similar across the different approaches 3 The proponents of each approach to the treatment of stroke tend to expound its differences (though they do in fact share many similarities (Partridge and De Weerdt. 1995) The purpose was to find i f therapists from a number of different approaches could agree on key outcomes related
to aims of treatment The extent 01 the consensus reached by participants was considered an important step in this difficult task. for any measures developed from this workshop are then applicable to most approaches currently in use in Britain 4 Patients and carers who took part
in the focus groups were asked if they wished to be part of the physiotherapy workshop, but they declined They said that they felt it easier to express their opinions in informal discussions without the physiotherapists present We did however have representation !rom the Stroke Association 5 The reviewer could find ‘nothing innovative in the material’ The organisers would have been alarmed if completely new aims of treatment, unrelated to the literature. had emerged The aim was to find the extent of agreement that could be reached on specific aims of treatment To the best of our knowledge we are not re-inventing the wheel, but introducing an approach which is novel in this area of work Peer group consensus among specialists provides a strong base and an important starting point The agreement on domains identified by patients and relatives relating to quality of physiotherapy services is also !ust a starting point for further work We produced the report because many of the participants and observers on the day asked us to do so
CeCily J Partridge PhD FCSP Canterbury
Reference Partridge. C J and De Weerdt. W (1995) Different approaches to physiotherapy for stroke’. Reviews m C/mca/ Gerontology. in press
New Look Approval
-
MADAM I am writing to congratulate you on the new Physiotherapy journal The layout is excellent. the division and variety of the articles well planned and interesting All-in-all it has made me more keen to read the journal through
Simon Purton BSc MCSP London N1
Chronic Pain Survey
-
MADAM A questionnaire designed to audit approaches to physiotherapy management of chronic pain patients was published in the November 1994 issue of Physrofherapy as a result of collaboration between the Rheumatic Care Association of Chartered Physiotherapists and the Association of Orthopaedic Chartered Physiotherapists We are still receiving entries and would like to remind all physiotherapists involved with patients with chronic pain to complete it i f they have not already done so It is not restricted to members of the Clinical Interest Groups which published it.
Jackie Waterfield MCSP Chronic Pain Working Party
Vienna Award TheViehyslcalMedicine Award is offered for an unpublished original scientific paper on any aspect of physical medicine in English. The prize of DM 1O.OOO plus travel subsidy up to DM 1,ooO is offered annually by Zimmer Electromedizin GmbH of NeuUlm. Germany, through the chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation, University of v i n e , Aushia. It is open to all academic scientists working in physiil mediine or related fields.
papersmstbenokngerthan ~typedpeges~enonymaus. A separate sheet should carry the name and address of the author($)with s h o R CV(s) and
stat-that the- *an authorandagreestoputJicetion of the manuscript. The closing ctateSAugMt 1,1995.Anawd ceremony will be held in V i on a date whiih is still to be announced.
Entries and all correspondence should be addressed to DO2 Dr V Fialka, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Wahrirgw, m e 4 1G20.AKH. 1090-
Austria.
Physiotherapy.March 1995. vol81. no3