Allied Health Sciences, Scientific Institute for Quality of Health Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2013 Dec;19(6):1044-53. doi: 10.1111/jep.12025. Epub 2013 Mar 19.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Little is currently known about the quality of physiotherapy care for patients with musculoskeletal pain. Neck pain was used as an example. The aim is to develop a set of quality indicators, including a practice test.
A systematic method is used to develop potential process and outcome indicators. An expert and user panel is used to appraise the potential quality indicators regarding clarity, relevancy, feasibility, acceptability and improvement potential. An invitation to participate in the practice test was sent to physiotherapy practices. The resulting algorithm is used to calculate the degree to which physiotherapists met these indicators (0-100%). Differences in valid outcomes are tested for significance (Student's t-test; α = 0.05) and compared with established values for clinical relevance [minimal clinically important change (MCIC)].
A representative set of 40 quality indicators (28 process indicators and 12 outcome indicators) is selected from 44 initial guidelines and literature-based recommendations. The process indicators (n = 28) are classified per step of the clinical reasoning process of physiotherapy care. Of the 106 potential participants from 27 practices, 38 physiotherapists (35.8%) submitted data on 96 patients with non-specific neck pain. On average, the participating physiotherapists showed a 55.6% adherence to process indicators with a great variation in scores per step of the clinical reasoning process. The outcomes for 'pain', 'headache' and 'daily functioning' were significantly better compared with baseline, and the mean differences exceeded established values for MCICs.
Guardedly, we can conclude that a systematic approach is a valuable means to develop a preliminary set of process and outcome indicators for physiotherapy care for patients with non-specific neck pain, and a practice test should be an intrinsic part of such a systematic approach as it provides valuable information on the key attributes of the set indicators.
背景、目的和目标:目前对于肌肉骨骼疼痛患者的物理治疗护理质量知之甚少。以颈部疼痛为例。目的是制定一套质量指标,包括实践测试。
使用系统方法制定潜在的过程和结果指标。使用专家和用户小组评估潜在质量指标的清晰度、相关性、可行性、可接受性和改进潜力。向物理治疗实践发出参加实践测试的邀请。使用由此产生的算法来计算物理治疗师满足这些指标的程度(0-100%)。对有效结果的差异进行显着性检验(学生 t 检验;α=0.05),并与临床相关的既定值[最小临床重要变化(MCIC)]进行比较。
从 44 项初始指南和基于文献的建议中选择了 40 个具有代表性的质量指标(28 个过程指标和 12 个结果指标)。过程指标(n=28)按物理治疗护理临床推理过程的步骤进行分类。在 27 个实践中的 106 个潜在参与者中,有 38 名物理治疗师(35.8%)提交了 96 名非特异性颈部疼痛患者的数据。平均而言,参与的物理治疗师对过程指标的依从率为 55.6%,每个临床推理过程步骤的得分差异很大。“疼痛”,“头痛”和“日常功能”的结果明显优于基线,平均差异超过 MCIC 的既定值。
谨慎地说,我们可以得出结论,系统方法是为非特异性颈部疼痛患者的物理治疗护理制定初步过程和结果指标的有价值的手段,实践测试应该是这种系统方法的固有组成部分,因为它提供了有关集指标关键属性的宝贵信息。