How physiotherapists perceive,interpret, and respond to the ethical dimensions of practice: A qualitative study

The profile and reach of physiotherapy has expanded in areas of extended scope of practice, and broader engagement with population needs beyond the individual treatment encounter. These changes raise increasingly complex ethical challenges evidenced by growth in physiotherapy-based ethics studies and discussions. This paper examines how a broad cross section of Australian physiotherapists perceive, interpret, and respond to ethical challenges in their work contexts and how professional codes of conduct are used in their practice. Using an interpretive qualitative methodology, purposive sampling of 88 members of national clinical special interest groups were recruited for focus group discussions. Narrative-based and thematic data analysis identified ethical challenges as emerging from specific clinical contexts, and influenced by health organizations, funding policies, workplace relationships, and individually held perspectives. Five themes were developed to represent these findings: (1) the working environment, (2) balancing diverse needs and expectation, (3) defining ethics, (4) striving to act ethically, and (5) talking about ethics. The results portray a diverse and complex ethical landscape where therapists encounter and grapple with ethical questions emerging from the impact of funding models and policies affecting clinical work, expanding boundaries and scope of practice and changing professional roles and relationships. Codes of conduct were described as foundational ethical knowledge but not always helpful for “in the moment” ethical decision-making. Based on this research, we suggest how codes of conduct, educators, and professional associations could cultivate and nurture ethics capability in physiotherapy practitioners for these contemporary challenges.     

Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive and median sternotomy for double and triple valve surgery: A meta-analysis

Background

Limited data exists demonstrating the efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to median sternotomy (MS) for multiple valvular disease (MVD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare operative and peri-operative outcomes of MIS vs MS in MVD.

Methods

PubMed, Ovid, and Embase were searched from inception until August 2019 for randomized and observational studies comparing MIS and MS in patients with MVD. Clinical outcomes of intra- and postoperative times, reoperation for bleeding and surgical site infection were evaluated.

Results

Five observational studies comparing 340 MIS vs 414 MS patients were eligible for qualitative and quantitative review. The quality of evidence assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was good for all included studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated increased cardiopulmonary bypass time for MIS patients (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.487; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.365-0.608; P < .0001). Similarly, aortic cross-clamp time was longer in patients undergoing MIS (WMD, 0.632; 95% CI, 0.509-0.755; P < .0001). No differences were found in operative mortality, reoperation for bleeding, surgical site infection, or hospital stay.

Conclusions

MIS for MVD have similar short-term outcomes compared to MS. This adds value to the use of minimally invasive methods for multivalvular surgery, despite conferring longer operative times. However, the paucity in literature and learning curve associated with MIS warrants further evidence, ideally randomized control trials, to support these findings.