Purpose This study aimed to portray the characteristics, process variables, and sensorimotor outcomes of patients who had received their usual post-stroke in-patient rehabilitation in three stroke rehabilitation units in Quebec in 2013-2014. Method We assessed patients (n = 264) at admission and discharge with a subset of a standardized assessment toolkit consisting of observational and performance-based assessment tools. Results The patients, with a mean age of 60.3 (SD 15.4) years, were admitted 27.7 (SD 8.4) days post-stroke onset. They had a mean admission FIM score of 83.0 (SD 24.0), a mean length of stay of 48.4 (SD 31.1) days, a mean FIM discharge score of 104.0 (SD 17.0), and a mean FIM efficiency score of 0.44 (SD 0.29). All patient outcomes were significantly improved (p less then 0.001) and clinically meaningful at discharge (moderate to large Glass’s Δ effect sizes) with the improvements greater than or equal to the minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence level in 34%-75% of the patients. Improvements were larger on five of seven outcomes in a sub-group of patients with more severe stroke. Conclusions The use of a combination of observational and performance assessment tools was essential to capture the full range of disabilities. We have documented significant and clinically meaningful improvements in functional independence, disability, and upper and lower extremity functions after usual post-stroke in-patient rehabilitation in the province of Quebec and provided baseline data for future studies.Purpose Panoramic ultrasound imaging (pUSI) is an extended field of view (FOV) imaging technique that enables visualization of larger muscles; however, it is not available in all ultrasound systems. Using an acoustic standoff pad that is compatible with any ultrasound system may be an alternative method to increase FOV, but it has not been used to evaluate limb muscles. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and feasibility of using pUSI and an acoustic standoff pad to measure the limb muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA). Method A cross-sectional study was conducted. Using pUSI and an acoustic standoff pad, we obtained B-mode ultrasound images of the rectus femoris, biceps brachii, and lateral gastrocnemius muscles of 26 healthy participants on two occasions 7-10 days apart. The agreement between the two methods was determined using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots. Test-retest reliability was assessed using ICCs and standard error of measurement (SEM). The feasibility of acquiring and analyzing the images was evaluated using a Likert scale. Results The acoustic standoff pad and pUSI demonstrated strong agreement (ICC[3,3] > 0.85); however, the mCSAs were different (p 0.85; SEM = 0.6-1.5 cm2). Image acquisition was highly feasible, but there were some limitations in analyzing the images. Conclusions pUSI and an acoustic standoff pad are two reliable techniques for measuring mCSA, but the measurements are not directly comparable. selleck chemicals Future studies should evaluate the accuracy of the acoustic standoff pad compared with gold-standard methods.Purpose The aim of this study was to develop a tool to assess physical therapists’ knowledge, skills, and judgement in performing airway suctioning with intubated and non-intubated adults. Method A modified Delphi methodology was used to develop the tool and to evaluate its sensibility (i.e., common-sense nature). Participants were experienced cardiorespiratory physical therapists who perform airway suctioning and physical therapists employed in academic positions related to cardiorespiratory physical therapy at Canadian universities. Round 1 focused on refining which items to include in the tool, Round 2 focused on finalizing the items, and Round 3 focused on evaluating a preliminary version of the tool. Results A total of 34 individuals participated in Round 1, 30 participated in Round 2, and 25 participated in Round 3. A literature review identified 11 relevant domains and 69 supporting competencies. In Round 1, consensus was achieved for all domains; however, it was borderline for the professionalism domain. Multiple participants suggested that it was redundant because it is a global requirement for all physical therapists. Consensus was also achieved for 64 of the 69 supporting competencies; however, it was borderline for 5 of these items, and 5 achieved no consensus. In Round 2, participants rated a series of recommendations related to items requiring further consideration, as well as 9 new items suggested by the participants in Round 1. In Round 3, the preliminary tool was found to be globally sensible, but concerns were expressed about the inclusion of redundant factors and the tool’s length. The tool was revised, resulting in a tool with 4 domains, 6 sub-domains and 43 supporting competencies, as well as an item rating the individual’s overall performance. Conclusions The final-round sensibility questionnaire provided preliminary evidence of the tool’s face and content validity. We will investigate the tool’s measurement properties in a future study.Purpose Visual-spatial abilities (VSAs) – the aptitude for mentally processing, retaining, and manipulating visual input – are used by physical therapists in movement analysis. Superior VSAs have been demonstrated in experts compared with novices in other fields, including surgery, anatomy, and aviation, but no literature has investigated VSAs in physical therapy. The purpose of this study was to quantify VSAs in expert and student physical therapists and investigate the differences between the two groups. Our results could assist future researchers in identifying areas for skill development and improved clinical competency in students and novice therapists. Method Expert physical therapists and first-year PT students completed four computerized VSA tests in the Psychology Experiment Building Language programme Four-Choice Response, Sequential Pattern Comparison, Mental Rotation, and Situation Awareness. Results A total of 16 participants were recruited for each group. Expert physical therapists responded more accurately to the Four-Choice Response test, but not significantly so (p = 0.