Areas of Consensus and Controversy about Goal Setting in Rehabilitation: a Conference Report and Delphi Study

This presentation will report on a conference and Delphi study which aimed to identify current consensus and controversies in goal setting and to identify future directions of travel for research. The conference was sponsored by the UCL Partners Centre for Neurorehabilition and Kingston University/St Georges University London. This is the third such conference; the second consensus conference on goal setting was held in 2009 and reported in Clinical Rehabilitation (Playford et al, Areas of consensus and controversy about goal setting in rehabilitation: a conference report, 2009; 23(4):334 – 44). The aim of this third conference was to revisit those controversies and areas of consensus and identify how far we have progressed and what is yet to be done. The meeting was attended by 100 health professionals working in the field of rehabilitation throughout the day a Delphi process was conducted and to indicate views on arrival, and how new information and discussion is re-shaping our thinking This Delphi is currently being continued and the results will be presented. Further rounds of the Delphi are planned to refine the Delphi and ensure the findings reflect any new consensus.

The majority of talks in the meeting were kept brief to encourage debate and discussion with contributions from all participants welcome. Sessions in the goal setting meeting focussed on theoretical underpinnings, the potential benefits of and outcomes from goal setting, goal setting process including Bridges, metaphoric identify mapping, goal setting and action planning practice framework and goal attainment scaling. The final session focussed on different patient groups and the specific goal setting challenges associated these groups.

The following questions are being explored as part of the Delphi

• What do you consider to be the most important reasons for using goal setting in neurorehabilitation? (i.e. what does goal setting achieve when it works well?)

• Given your experience of being involved in goal setting in neurorehabilitation how would you measure the impact of what was achieved by/through goal setting?

• What theories and/or models do you consider to be the most relevant to goal setting in a neurorehabilitation context?

• When reporting on an approach to goal setting in neurorehabilitation, which components need to be described to allow replication within and across clinical settings elsewhere?

• Given your understanding of the latest thinking on goal setting in neurorehabilitation, what research questions do you think need to be asked next in order to enhance clinical practice?

• What do you think are the factors that affect the experience of patients/clients of goal-setting?