Use of standardized outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputation: A survey of prosthetic practitioners in Canada

Brittany Mae Pousett; Bram P W Kok; Sara J Morgan; Brian J Hafner

doi:10.1097/PXR.0000000000000339

Use of standardized outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputation: A survey of prosthetic practitioners in Canada

Prosthet Orthot Int. 2024 Mar 19. doi: 10.1097/PXR.0000000000000339. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Brittany Mae Pousett¹, Bram P W Kok², Sara J Morgan^{3

4

5}, Brian J Hafner⁴

Affiliations

¹ Barber Prosthetics Clinic, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
² Winnipeg Prosthetics and Orthotics, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
³ Research Department, Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare, Saint Paul, MN.
⁴ Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
⁵ Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

PMID: 38506637
DOI: 10.1097/PXR.0000000000000339

Abstract

Background: Outcome measures (OMs) are useful tools; however, clinicians may find implementing them into clinical practice challenging.

Objectives: To characterize Canadian prosthetists' use of OMs for people with lower-limb amputation, including motivations for use, comfort selecting OMs, resources available for administration, and barriers to implementation.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between March and July 2021. Orthotics Prosthetics Canada sent Canadian prosthetists an invitation to take the online survey.

Results: Forty-nine Certified Prosthetists completed the survey. Only 16% of participants reported that they were expected to use OMs. Participants reported being more comfortable administering performance-based OMs than self-report surveys. More than two-thirds of participants agreed that OMs "can be administered with knowledge they have" and are "within their scope of practice." However, less than 25% agreed that OMs are "administered in a standardized way in the profession," and less than 40% indicated they are "easy to make part of my routine." Participants reported they generally have time and space to do OMs, but there was no agreed-on reason to use them.

Conclusions: Use of OMs among Canadian prosthetists seems to be low relative to prosthetists in the United States. Education, financial incentives, or changes to professional expectations are likely needed to increase routine OM use. Efforts to improve the standardization of OM administration and ease the incorporation of OMs into routine practice may also increase use. Canadian prosthetists may elevate their standards of clinical practice and better understand the impact of prosthetic treatments on their patients by more routinely using OMs.