Functional capacity evaluation as a performance measure - Evidence for a new approach for clients with chronic back pain

Objectives: To report the research and development of a new approach to Functional Capacity Evaluation, the Gibson Approach to Functional Capacity Evaluation (GAPP FCE) for chronic back pain clients. Methods: Four Studies, including pilot and feasibility testing, expert review, and preliminary interrater reliability examination, are described here. Participants included 7 healthy young adults and 19 rehabilitation clients with back pain who underwent assessment using the GAPP FCE. Thirteen therapists were trained in the approach and were silently observed administering the Functional Capacity Evalutions by at least 1 other trained therapists or the first investigator Or both. An expert review using 5 expert occupational therapists was also conducted. Results: Study 1, the pilot with healthy individuals, indicated that the GAPP FCE was a feasible approach with good utility. Study 2, a pilot using 2 trained therapists assessing 5 back pain clients, supported the clinical feasibility of the approach. The expert review in Study 3 found support for GAPP FCE. Study 4, a trial of the approach with 14 rehabilitation clients, found support for the interrater reliability of recommendations for return to work based on performance in the GAPP FCE. Discussion: The evidence thus far available supports the GAPP FCE as ail approach that provides a Sound method for evaluating the performance of the physical demands of work with clients with chronic back pain. The tool has been shown to have good face and content validity, to meet acceptable test standards, and to have reasonable interrater reliability. Further research is occurring to look at a larger interrater reliability study, to further examine content validity, and to examine predictive validity.

Development and evaluation of the Clinician Suicide Risk Assessment Checklist

This paper describes the development and evaluation of a new instrument – the Clinician Suicide Risk Assessment Checklist (CSRAC). The instrument assesses the clinician’s competency in three areas: clinical interviewing, assessment of specific suicide risk factors, and formulating a management plan. A draft checklist was constructed by integrating information from 1) literature review 2) expert clinician focus group and 3) consultation with experts. It was utilised in a simulated clinical scenario with clinician trainees and a trained actor in order to test for inter-rater agreement. Agreement was calculated and the checklist was re-drafted with the aim of maximising agreement. A second phase of simulated clinical scenarios was then conducted and inter-rater agreement was calculated for the revised checklist. In the first phase of the study, 18 of 35 items had inadequate inter-rater agreement (60%>), while in the second phase, using the revised version, only 3 of 39 items failed to achieve adequate inter-rater agreement. Further evidence of reliability and validity are required. Continued development of the CSRAC will be necessary before it can be utilised to assess the effectiveness of risk assessment training programs.

A framework for systematically improving occupational therapy expert opinions on work capacity

Aim: To present an evidence-based framework to improve the quality of occupational therapy expert opinions on work capacity for litigation, compensation and insurance purposes. Methods: Grounded theory methodology was used to collect and analyse data from a sample of 31 participants, comprising 19 occupational therapists, 6 medical specialists and 6 lawyers. A focused semistructured interview was completed with each participant. In addition, 20 participants verified the key findings. Results: The framework is contextualised within a medicolegal system requiring increasing expertise. The framework consists of (i) broad professional development strategies and principles, and (ii) specific strategies and principles for improving opinions through reporting and assessment practices. Conclusions: The synthesis of the participants' recommendations provides systematic guidelines for improving occupational therapy expert opinion on work capacity.

Comparison of ASAS improvement criteria for ankylosing spondylitis with clinically relevant improvement according to an expert panel

Objective: To investigate whether the recently developed (statistically derived) "ASsessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group" improvement criteria (ASAS-IC) for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) reflect clinically relevant improvement according to the opinion of an expert panel. Methods: The ASAS-IC consist of four domains: physical function, spinal pain, patient global assessment, and inflammation. Scores on these four domains of 55 patients with AS, who had participated in a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug efficacy trial, were presented to an international expert panel (consisting of patients with AS and members of the ASAS Working Group) in a three round Delphi exercise. The number of (non-) responders according to the ASAS-IC was compared with the final-consensus of the experts. The most important domains in the opinion of the experts were identified, and also selected with discriminant analysis. A number of provisional criteria sets that best represented the consensus of the experts were defined. Using other datasets, these clinically derived criteria sets as well as the statistically derived ASAS-IC were then tested for discriminative properties and for agreement with the end of trial efficacy by patient and doctor. Results: Forty experts completed the three Delphi rounds. The experts considered twice as many patients to be responders than the ASAS-IC (42 v 21). Overall agreement between experts and ASAS-IC was 62%. Spinal pain was considered the most important domain by most experts and was also selected as such by discriminant analysis. Provisional criteria sets with an agreement of greater than or equal to 80% compared with the consensus of the experts showed high placebo response rates (27-42%), in contrast with the ASAS-IC with a predefined placebo response rate of 25%. All criteria sets and the ASAS-IC discriminated well between active and placebo treatment (chi(2) = 36-45; p < 0.001). Compared with the end of trial efficacy assessment, the provisional criteria sets showed an agreement of 71-82%, sensitivity of 67-83%, and specificity of 81-88%. The ASAS-IC showed an agreement of 70%, sensitivity of 62%, and specificity of 89%. Conclusion: The ASAS-IC are strict in defining response, are highly specific, and consequently show lower sensitivity than the clinically derived criteria sets. However, those patients who are considered as responders by applying the ASAS-IC are acknowledged as such by the expert panel as well as by. patients' and doctors' judgments, and are therefore likely to be true responders.