Physiotherapy practice in the private sector: organizational characteristics and models.

BACKGROUND: Even if a large proportion of physiotherapists work in the private sector worldwide, very little is known of the organizations within which they practice. Such knowledge is important to help understand contexts of practice and how they influence the quality of services and patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to: 1) describe characteristics of organizations where physiotherapists practice in the private sector, and 2) explore the existence of a taxonomy of organizational models. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional quantitative survey of 236 randomly-selected physiotherapists. Participants completed a purpose-designed questionnaire online or by telephone, covering organizational vision, resources, structures and practices. Organizational characteristics were analyzed descriptively, while organizational models were identified by multiple correspondence analyses. RESULTS: Most organizations were for-profit (93.2%), located in urban areas (91.5%), and within buildings containing multiple businesses/organizations (76.7%). The majority included multiple providers (89.8%) from diverse professions, mainly physiotherapy assistants (68.7%), massage therapists (67.3%) and osteopaths (50.2%). Four organizational models were identified: 1) solo practice, 2) middle-scale multiprovider, 3) large-scale multiprovider and 4) mixed. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide a detailed description of the organizations where physiotherapists practice, and highlight the importance of human resources in differentiating organizational models. Further research examining the influences of these organizational characteristics and models on outcomes such as physiotherapists' professional practices and patient outcomes are needed.

Survey on current practices for neurological prognostication after cardiac arrest.

PURPOSE: To investigate current practices and timing of neurological prognostication in comatose cardiac arrest patients. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to the 8000 members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine during September and October 2012. The survey had 27 questions divided into three categories: background data, clinical data, decision-making and consequences. RESULTS: A total of 1025 respondents (13%) answered the survey with complete forms in more than 90%. Twenty per cent of respondents practiced outside of Europe. Overall, 22% answered that they had national recommendations, with the highest percentage in the Netherlands (>80%). Eighty-nine per cent used induced hypothermia (32-34 °C) for comatose cardiac arrest patients, while 11% did not. Twenty per cent had separate prognostication protocols for hypothermia patients. Seventy-nine per cent recognized that neurological examination alone is not enough to predict outcome and a similar number (76%) used additional methods. Intermittent electroencephalography (EEG), brain computed tomography (CT) scan and evoked potentials (EP) were considered most useful. Poor prognosis was defined as cerebral performance category (CPC) 3-5 (58%) or CPC 4-5 (39%) or other (3%). When prognosis was considered poor, 73% would actively withdraw intensive care while 20% would not and 7% were uncertain. CONCLUSION: National recommendations for neurological prognostication after cardiac arrest are uncommon and only one physician out of five uses a separate protocol for hypothermia treated patients. A neurological examination alone was considered insufficient to predict outcome in comatose patients and most respondents advocated a multimodal approach: EEG, brain CT and EP were considered most useful. Uncertainty regarding neurological prognostication and decisions on level of care was substantial.