Rehabilitation device efficacy alone does not lead to clinical practice adoption. Previous literature identifies drivers for device adoption by therapists but does not identify the best settings to introduce devices, the roles of different stakeholders including rehabilitation directors, or specific criteria to be met during device development. The objective of this work was to provide insights into these areas to increase clinical adoption of post-stroke restorative rehabilitation devices. We interviewed 107 persons including physical/occupational therapists, rehabilitation directors, and stroke survivors and performed content analysis. Unique to this work, care settings in which therapy goals are best aligned for restorative devices were found to be outpatient rehabilitation, followed by inpatient rehabilitation. Therapists are the major influencers for adoption because they typically introduce new rehabilitation devices to patients for both clinic and home use. We also learned therapists' utilization rate of a rehabilitation device influences a rehabilitation director's decision to acquire the device for facility use. Main drivers for each stakeholder are identified, along with specific criteria to add details to findings from previous literature. In addition, drivers for home adoption of rehabilitation devices by patients are identified. Rehabilitation device development should consider the best settings to first introduce the device, roles of each stakeholder, and drivers that influence each stakeholder, to accelerate successful adoption of the developed device.

No abstract

Stroke rehabilitation is expensive, and recent changes to Medicare reimbursement demand more efficient interventions. The use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can help occupational therapy practitioners, rehabilitation directors, and payers better understand the value of occupational therapy and decide whether or not to implement new treatments. The objective of this article is to illustrate the contribution of CEA to stroke rehabilitation using a hypothetical new intervention as an example. What This Article Adds: This article facilitates an understanding of the importance of CEA to occupational therapy. It also explains how CEA improves consistency with reporting standards for cost-effectiveness studies.

Many rehabilitation devices are not adopted by therapists in practice. One major barrier is therapists’ limited time and resources to get training. The objective of this study was to develop/evaluate an efficient training program for a novel rehabilitation device. The program was developed based on structured interviews with seven therapists for training preference and composed of asynchronous and in-person trainings following efficient teaching methods. The training program was evaluated for six occupational therapy doctoral students and six licensed therapists in neurorehabilitation practice. Training effectiveness was evaluated in a simulated treatment session in which 3 trainees shifted their roles among therapist applying the device, client, and peer assessor. In results, 11 of the 12 trainees passed the assessment of using the device in simulated treatment sessions. One trainee did not pass because s/he did not plug in the device to charge at the end. The in-person training fit within 1-h lunch break. All trainees perceived that they could effectively use the device in their practice and both asynchronous and in-person training easily fit into their schedule. This project serves as an example for development of an efficient and effective training program for a novel rehabilitation device to facilitate clinical adoption.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost differences of a telerehabilitation versus outpatient session. A secondary objective was to identify areas to improve telerehabilitation delivery efficiency. We aim to improve the translation/adoption of telerehabilitation for clinical use. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This study used a time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) approach including 1) observation of rehabilitation sessions and creation of manual time stamps, 2) structured and recorded interviews with two occupational therapists familiar with outpatient therapy and two therapists familiar with telerehabilitation, 3) collection of standard wages for providers, and 4) the creation of an iterative flowchart of both an outpatient and telerehabilitation session care delivery process. This study followed the reporting guidelines to ensure a standardization for TDABC research. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Overall, telerehabilitation ($225.41) was more costly than outpatient therapy ($168.29) per session for a cost difference of $57.12. Primary time drivers of this finding were initial phone calls (0 mins for OP therapists versus 35 mins for TR) and post documentation (5 mins for OP versus 30 mins for TR) demands for telerehabilitation. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Telerehabilitation is an emerging platform with the potential to reduce costs, improve healthcare inequities, and facilitate better patient outcomes. Improvements in documentation practices, staffing, technology, and reimbursement structuring would allow for a more successful translation.