PWE-172 A National Biofeedback Practitioners Service Evaluation

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Introduction

Within the UK, there is anecdotal evidence of disparity in the training, practice, supervision, and perception of efficacy amongst practitioners of biofeedback therapy for chronic constipation.

Methods

Between October 2012 and October 2013, a prospective service evaluation was distributed to biofeedback practitioners in the UK through academic conferences or by invitation to complete an online assessment form.

Results

76 practitioners responded, consisting of nurses (47%), physiotherapists (35%), physiologists (12%) and others (7%). Only 45% described ‘biofeedback’ consistent with an accepted definition. 86% use equipment to provide sensory feedback. Methods of biofeedback varied: balloon catheter (54%), brace pump technique (78%), urge resistance (83%), irrigation (16%), and relaxation (12%). Only 65% of practitioners had attended formal training courses, and 52% considered themselves to be self-tau, UKght. 36% receive formal supervision and only 38% of those by a senior. Regular audit of outcomes is undertaken by 67%. UK-wide perception of treatment response for chronic constipation is markedly variable (mean response = 57% [IQR: 50–75%, SD 23%]); there were no differences in perception of treatment response between nurses or physiotherapists. Practitioners’ free responses demonstrated strong positive themes of a holistic approach and an overall perception of effectiveness. Negative themes included service restrictions.

Conclusion

There is marked variation in practice, training, and supervision of biofeedback therapists throughout the UK. Perceptions of efficacy vary greatly. Development of training and supervision standards is a priority as well as consensus to standardise therapy.

Disclosure of Interest

None Declared.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles