Assessments Used by Athletic Trainers to Decide Return-to-Activity Readiness in Patients

Abstract

ABSTRACT Context: Patients with ankle sprains are often cared for by athletic trainers (ATs). Expert consensus was previously established for Rehabilitation-Oriented Assessments (ROASTs) that should be included in ankle sprain evaluations. However, it is unknown what methods ATs use to determine return-to-activity readiness following an ankle sprain. Objective: Our purpose was to identify ATs' methods for determining patients' return-to-activity readiness following an ankle sprain and demographic determinants of ATs' methods. Setting: Online survey Study Design: Cross-sectional study Level of Evidence: CEBM Level 1 Participants: We recruited 10,000 clinically practicing ATs. A total of 676 accessed the survey, 574 submitted responses (85% completion rate), and 541 respondents met inclusion criteria. Main Outcome Measures: We distributed an online survey to participants to ask them about their assessment of pain, swelling, range of motion, arthrokinematics, strength, balance, gait, functional capacity, physical activity level, and patient-reported outcomes in deciding return-to-activity. Descriptive statistics characterized participant demographics and frequencies of assessment measures used by ATs. Chi-square analyses identified relationships between demographics and assessment selection. Results: Pain, swelling, range of motion, strength, balance, gait, and functional capacity were assessed by 76–97% of ATs. Arthrokinematics, physical activity level, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed by 25–36% of participants. When selecting specific assessment methods, ATs often did not use recommended ROASTs. ATs with higher degrees, more advance educational programs, employment in non-traditional settings, more clinical experience, and familiarity with expert consensus recommendations were more likely to use ROASTs. Conclusions: Before approving return-to-activity for patients with ankle sprains, some recommended outcomes and assessment methods are not evaluated by ATs. Practice in non-traditional settings, more advanced degrees, more clinical experience, and familiarity with expert-consensus guidelines appear to facilitate use of ROASTs.