Skip to main content
Bulletin of Faculty of Physical Therapy
Download PDF
  • Original article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Assessment and documentation among physical therapists in Egypt

Bulletin of Faculty of Physical Therapy volume 21, pages 32–41 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Standardized assessment is a legal and ethical professional requirement in clinical decision-making. Clinical guidelines emphasize the importance of clinical assessment and documentation to foster the implementation of evidence-based management and reduce unnecessary therapeutic costs. In developing countries like Egypt, healthcare may be suboptimal and is challenged by low budget and malpractices. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the association between assessment and documentation of physical therapy and Egyptian physical therapists’ demographics. In addition, therapists’ attitude toward the use of electronic medical record was also evaluated.

Materials and methods

An online and a paper-based survey was developed and tested for linguistic clarity before it was administrated to physical therapists.

Results

A total of 389 questionnaires were used for statistical analyses. The majority of the respondents (84.1%) always or often assessed their patients; however, almost half of them (44.7%) rarely or never used the assessment tools. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents always or often documented their examination findings. Electronic medical records were rarely or never used by 42.7% of the respondents, although almost all of them expressed their willingness to use them if they were available for free. More experienced male therapists with higher academic degrees were significantly but weakly associated with more frequent patient assessment (P<0.05). Furthermore, male junior therapists used assessment tools more frequently (P<0.05). None of the demographic variables was associated with documentation (P>0.05). For practice type, respondents worked at various clinical settings. No association between the type of practice and assessment or documentation was found (P>0.05).

Conclusion

The majority of Egyptian physical therapists assess patients informally without the use of standard tools. Although patients’ findings are documented, the use of electronic meical records is rare.

References

  1. Swinkels ICS, van den Ende CHM, van den Bosch W, Dekker J, Wimmers RH. Physiotherapy management of low back pain: does practice match the Dutch guidelines?. Aust J Physiother 2005; 51:35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rothstein JM, Campbell SK, Echternach JL, Jette AM, Knecht HG, Rose SJ. Standards for tests and measurements in physical therapy practice. Phys Ther 1991; 71:589–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. World Confederation for Physical Therapy. WCPT guideline for standards of physical therapy practice. London: World Confederation for Physical Therapy, Victoria Charity Centre; 2011. Available at: http://www.wcpt.org/sites/wcpt.org/files/files/Guideline_standards_practice_complete.pdf. Accessed on: September 7, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Monkeysurvey; 2016. Available at: http://www.monkeysurvey.com. Accessed from August 2015 to January 2016 (continuous).

  5. Raosoft sample size calculator; 2004. Available at: http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html. Accessed 05 August 2015.

  6. Colon VF. 10 ways to reduce medical malpractice exposure. Physician Exec 2002; 28:16–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Teichman P. Documentation tips for reducing malpractice risk. Fam Pr Manag 2000; 7:29–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Agarwal R, Kalita J, Misra UK. Barriers to evidence-based medicine practice in South Asia and possible solutions. Neurol Asia 2008; 13:87–94.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Haigh R, Tennant A, Biering-Sorensen F, Grimby G, Marincek C, Phillips S et al. The use of outcome measures in physical medicine and rehabilitation within Europe. J Rehabil Med 2001; 33:273–278.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chesson R, Macleod M, Massie S. Outcome measures used in therapy departments in Scotland. Physiotherapy 1996; 82:673–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Russek L, Wooden M, Ekedahl S, Bush A. Attitudes toward standardized data collection. Phys Ther 1997; 77:714–729.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Swinkels R, van Peppen RPS, Wittink H, Custers JWH, Beurskens AJHM. Current use and barriers and facilitators for implementation of standardised measures in physical therapy in the Netherlands. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011; 12:106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stevens JGA, Beurskens AJMH. Implementation of measurement instruments in physical therapist practice: development of a tailored strategy. Phys Ther 2010; 90:953–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moncur C. Physical therapy competencies in rheumatology. Phys Ther 1985; 65:1365–1372.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Abrams D, Davidson M, Harrick J, Harcourt P, Zylinski M, Clancy J et al. Promoting the use of measurement tools in practice: a mixed-methods study of the activities and experiences of physical therapist knowledge brokers. Phys Ther 2008; 90:191–206.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johanson MA. Sex differences in career expectations of physical therapist students. Phys Ther 2007; 87:1199–1211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Donn SM. Medical liability, risk management, and the quality of health care. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2005; 10:3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sandstrom R. Malpractice by physical therapists: descriptive analysis of reports in the National Practitioner Data Bank public use data file, 1991-2004. J Allied Health 2007; 36:201–208.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kolber M, Lucado AM. Risk management strategies in physical therapy: documentation to avoid malpractice. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2005; 18:123–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Duncan EAS, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2012; 12:96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Van der Wees PJ, Jamtvedt G, Rebbeck T, de Bie RA, Dekker J, Hendriks EJM. Multifaceted strategies may increase implementation of physiotherapy clinical guidelines: a systematic review. Aust J Physiother 2008; 54:233–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ketelaar M, Russell DJ, Gorter JW. The challenge of moving evidence-based measures into clinical practice: lessons in knowledge translation. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2008; 28:191–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Salbach NM, Veinot P, Jaglal SB, Bayley M, Rolfe D. From continuing education to personal digital assistants: what do physical therapists need to support evidence-based practice in stroke management?. J Eval Clin Pract 2011; 17:786–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Abrams D, Davidson M, Harrick J, Harcourt P, Zylinski M, Clancy J. Monitoring the change: current trends in outcome measure usage in physiotherapy. Man Ther 2006; 11:46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Copeland JM, Taylor WJ, Dean SG. Factors influencing the use of outcome measures for patients with low back pain: a survey of New Zealand physical therapists. Phys Ther 2008; 88:1492–1505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Musculoskeletal Disorders and Surgery, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, 10 Mohammed Korium St., 6th district, 11391, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt

    Aliaa Rehan Youssef PhD

  2. Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Cario, Egypt

    Mohammed Gumaa Bakry

Authors
  1. Aliaa Rehan Youssef PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammed Gumaa Bakry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aliaa Rehan Youssef PhD.

Additional information

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work noncommercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Youssef, A.R., Bakry, M.G. Assessment and documentation among physical therapists in Egypt. Bull Fac Phys Ther 21, 32–41 (2016). https://doi.org/10.4103/1110-6611.188024

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1110-6611.188024

Keywords