Scholte Marijn, Neeleman-van der Steen Catharina W M, Hendriks Erik J M, Nijhuis-van der Sanden Maria W G, Braspenning Jozé
IQ Healthcare, University Medical Centre St. Radboud, PO Box 9101, 114, Nijmegen 6500 HB, The Netherlands IQ Healthcare, Geert Grooteplein 21, Nijmegen 6525 EZ, The Netherlands.
Caransscoop, Beekbergen, The Netherlands Caransscoop, Saltshof 1229, Wijchen 6604 EC, The Netherlands.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2014 Jun;26(3):261-70. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzu031. Epub 2014 Apr 3.
To evaluate measurement properties of a set of public quality indicators on physical therapy.
An observational study with web-based collected survey data (2009 and 2010).
Dutch primary care physical therapy practices.
In 3743 physical therapy practices, 11 274 physical therapists reporting on 30 patients each.
Eight quality indicators were constructed: screening and diagnostics (n= 2), setting target aim and subsequent of intervention (n = 2), administrating results (n = 1), global outcome measures (n = 2) and patient's treatment agreement (n = 1). Measurement properties on content and construct validity, reproducibility, floor and ceiling effects and interpretability of the indicators were assessed using comparative statistics and multilevel modeling.
Content validity was acceptable. Construct validity (using known group techniques) of two outcome indicators was acceptable; hypotheses on age, gender and chronic vs. acute care were confirmed. For the whole set of indicators reproducibility was approximated by correlation of 2009 and 2010 data and rated moderately positive (Spearman's ρ between 0.3 and 0.42 at practice level) and interpretability as acceptable, as distinguishing between patient groups was possible. Ceiling effects were assessed negative as they were high to extremely high (30% for outcome indicator 6-95% for administrating results).
Weaknesses in data collection should be dealt with to reduce bias and to reduce ceiling effects by randomly extracting data from electronic medical records. More specificity of the indicators seems to be needed, and can be reached by focusing on most prevalent conditions, thus increasing usability of the indicators to improve quality of care.
评估一组物理治疗公共质量指标的测量属性。
一项基于网络收集调查数据的观察性研究(2009年和2010年)。
荷兰初级保健物理治疗机构。
在3743家物理治疗机构中,11274名物理治疗师每人报告30名患者的情况。
构建了八项质量指标:筛查与诊断(n = 2)、设定目标及后续干预(n = 2)、管理结果(n = 1)、总体结果测量(n = 2)以及患者治疗依从性(n = 1)。使用比较统计和多水平模型评估指标在内容和结构效度、可重复性、地板效应和天花板效应以及可解释性方面的测量属性。
内容效度可接受。两项结果指标的结构效度(使用已知组技术)可接受;关于年龄、性别以及慢性病与急性病护理的假设得到证实。对于整套指标,2009年和2010年数据的相关性近似可重复性,且评级为中度正相关(实践层面的斯皮尔曼ρ在0.3至0.42之间),可解释性为可接受,因为能够区分患者组。天花板效应评估为负面,因为其较高至极高(结果指标6为30%,管理结果为95%)。
应处理数据收集方面的弱点,以减少偏差,并通过从电子病历中随机提取数据来减少天花板效应。似乎需要提高指标的特异性,可通过关注最常见的病症来实现,从而提高指标在改善护理质量方面的可用性。