Advanced Technology in a Real-World Rehabilitation Setting: Longitudinal Observational Study on Clinician Adoption and Implementation.

Background: Advanced technologies are becoming increasingly accessible in rehabilitation. Current research suggests technology can increase therapy dosage, provide multisensory feedback, and reduce manual handling for clinicians. While more high-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of rehabilitation technologies is needed, understanding of how to effectively integrate technology into clinical practice is also limited. Current implementation of rehabilitation technology is inconsistent, with low uptake among clinicians and frequent reports of technology abandonment. An Australian rehabilitation provider opened a new technology therapy center in 2022, offering a unique opportunity to generate practice-based evidence to inform future technology implementation and research.

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the implementation and adoption of advanced technology within a real-world rehabilitation setting.

Methods: This study was a longitudinal observational study in a rehabilitation organization with inpatient, outpatient, and community settings. Allied health clinicians (n=119) within the organization had access to advanced technologies, with patients receiving neurological, spinal cord injury, brain injury, or general rehabilitation. Interventions included 21 advanced technologies, including robotic, virtual reality (VR), sensor-based, and functional electrical stimulation devices. Clinicians received training for devices in a staged approach by external and internal trainers. Data were collected from patient electronic medical records from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023. Outcomes included frequency of advanced technology use, patient demographics (age, gender, and primary health condition), clinician discipline, rehabilitation service (inpatient, outpatient, or community), goals of technology therapy sessions, and therapy dosage achieved (minutes active, number of repetitions, and meters walked).

Results: Clinicians used advanced technology 4208 times with 269 patients over 12 months; specifically, physiotherapists (2716/4208, 65%), occupational therapists (1396/4208, 33%), and allied health assistants (96/4208, 2%). The majority of patients had stroke, spinal cord injury, or brain injury diagnoses (188/269, 70%). Devices were typically used to target impairment and activity limitation-related goals. Frequently used devices included gait training body-weight support (VR treadmill and overground), overground robotic exoskeletons, and upper limb robotic VR devices. Outpatient services were the dominant users of advanced technology (3940/4208, 94%). Clinicians most commonly used devices for patients with stroke (1973/4208, 47%) and the greatest variety of devices for patients with stroke and spinal cord injury. The relative use of lower limb robotic devices was greater in inpatient services (91/178, 51%, vs outpatient services, 963/2335, 41%) (χ=6.6, P=.01) and for patients with spinal cord injury (48/95, 51%, vs all other conditions, between 24%-31%; χ=16.8, P=.005).

Conclusions: The type and amount of advanced technology use differed between patient populations and rehabilitation settings. To support clinician use of advanced technology, devices should match the rehabilitation context. Tailored strategies are important, such as clinician training. Further practice-based research is required to provide guidance on implementation and to establish the effectiveness of advanced technology use.