Dataset Information

Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Quality Indicators in Dutch Primary Care Physical Therapy for Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The purpose of this study was to define and select a core set of outcome-based quality indicators, accepted by stakeholders on usability and perceived added value as a quality improvement tool, and to formulate recommendations for the next implementation step.

Methods

In phase 1, 15 potential quality indicators were defined for patient-reported outcome measures and associated domains, namely the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain intensity, the Patient Specific Functioning Scale (PSFS) for physical activity, the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale for physical functioning, and the Global Perceived Effect-Dutch Version for perceived effect. Their comparability and discriminatory characteristics were described using cohort data. In phase 2, a core set of quality indicators was selected based on consensus among stakeholders in focus group meetings.

Results

In total, 65,815 completed treatment episodes for patients with nonspecific low back pain were provided by 1009 physical therapists from 219 physical therapist practices. The discriminability between physical therapists of all potential 15 quality indicators was adequate, with intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.08 and 0.30. Stakeholders selected a final core set of 6 quality indicators: 2 process indicators (the routine measurement of NPRS and the PSFS) and 4 outcome indicators (pretreatment and posttreatment change scores for the NPRS, PSFS, Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, and the minimal clinically important difference of the Global Perceived Effect-Dutch Version).

Conclusion

This study described and selected a core set of outcome-based quality indicators for physical therapy in patients with nonspecific low back pain. The set was accepted by stakeholders for having added value for daily practice in physical therapy primary care and was found useful for quality improvement initiatives. Further studies need to focus on improvement of using the core set of outcome-based quality indicators as a quality monitoring and evaluation instrument.

Impact

Patient-reported outcome-based quality indicators developed from routinely collected clinical data are promising for use in quality improvement in daily practice.

SUBMITTER: Verburg AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8336590 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding which patient-reported outcome measures are being collected and utilized in clinical practice and research for patients with neck pain will help to inform recommendations for a core set of measures that provide value to patients and clinicians during diagnosis, clinical decision-making, goal setting and evaluation of responsiveness to treatment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a review of systematic reviews using a qualitative synthesis on the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients presenting with neck pain to physical therapy.MethodsAn electronic search of systematic reviews and guideline publications was performed using MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), and Web of Science (Clarivate) databases to identify reviews that evaluated physical therapy interventions or interventions commonly performed by a physical therapist for individuals with neck pain and included at least one patient-reported outcome measure. The frequency and variability in which the outcome measures were reported among the studies in the review and the constructs for which they measured were evaluated. The evaluation of a core set of outcome measures was assessed. Risk of bias and quality assessment was performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2.ResultsOf the initial 7,003 articles, a total of 37 studies were included in the final review. Thirty-one PROMs were represented within the 37 reviews with eleven patient-reported outcome measures in three or more reviews. The eleven PROMs assessed the constructs of disability, pain intensity, psychosocial factors and quality of life. The greatest variability was found amongst individual measures assessing psychosocial factors. Assessment of psychosocial factors was the least represented construct in the included studies. Overall, the most frequently utilized patient reported outcome measures were the Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale. The most frequently used measures evaluating the constructs of disability, pain intensity, quality of life and psychosocial functioning included the Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, Short-Form-36 health survey and Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire respectively. Overall risk of bias and quality assessment confidence levels ranged from critically low (2 studies), low (12 studies), moderate (8 studies), and high (15 studies).ConclusionThis study identified a core set of patient-reported outcome measures that represented the constructs of disability, pain intensity and quality of life. This review recommends the collection and use of the Neck Disability Index and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analog Scale. Recommendation for a QoL measure needs to be considered in the context of available resources and administrative burden. Further research is needed to confidently recommend a QoL and psychosocial measure for patients presenting with neck pain. Other measures that were not included in this review but should be further evaluated for patients with neck pain are the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical function, PROMIS Pain Interference and the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) tool.

Project description:Background:Researchers are highly interested in the study of nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP). However, few have attempted to collect global data, analyze the emerging trends, and conduct reviews from the perspectives of visualization and bibliometrics. Purpose:We aimed to evaluate research situation and capture subsequent developmental dynamics regarding NSLBP via CiteSpace. Methods:Publications on NSLBP in recent 19 years were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). We used CiteSpace to analyze publication outputs, document types, countries, institutions, journals, authors, references, and keywords. Knowledge foundation, hot topics, and future direction were then stated. Results:A total of 1099 papers were collected, and the trend of annual publications maintained growth with small fluctuations. Australia (188) and the University of Sydney (76) were the most prolific country and institution, respectively. The Netherlands (0.84) and the University of Sydney (0.47) had the maximum centrality, thus indicating that they have importance in this field. The journal Spine (publication: 87, cocitation counts: 942) ranked first in terms of the volume of publications and cocitation counts. Maher CG (52) who published the most papers and Waddell G (286) who was cited most frequently were the leading authors, thus making strong academic influences. "Motor control exercise" was the largest cluster, which contained most related research articles. 14 references with the strongest citation counts were cited until 2018, thus implying the future development trend. Current hotspots were treatment, meta-analysis, method, and risk factors. Spine, efficacy, adult, and meta-analysis can be regarded as research frontiers. Conclusion:This study offers insights into the trend of NSLBP to determine major research countries and institutions, core journals, pivotal authors, overall development tendency, hot topics, and research frontiers. Moreover, it will help researchers extract hidden valuable information for further study.

Project description:BackgroundStarting in 2005, Germany's health law required hospital quality reports to be published every two years by all acute care hospitals. The reports were intended to help patients and physicians make informed choices of hospitals. However, while establishing the quality indicators that form the content of the reports, the information needs of the target groups were not explicitly taken into account. Therefore, the aim of our study was to determine patient and physician opinion of the relevance of the reported quality indicators for choosing or referring to a hospital.MethodsConvenience samples of 50 patients and 50 physicians were asked to rate the understandability (patients), suitability (physicians) and relevance (both groups) of a set of 29 quality indicators. The set was drawn from the reports (24 indicators) and supplemented by five indicators commonly used in hospital quality reports. We analysed the differences in patient and physician ratings of relevance of all indicators by applying descriptive statistics, t-tests and Wilcoxon tests.ResultsOnly three indicators were considered not understandable by the interviewed patients and unsuitable by the interviewed physicians. The patients rated 19 indicators as highly or very relevant, whereas the physicians chose 15 indicators. The most relevant indicator for the patients was "qualification of doctors", and for the physicians "volume of specified surgical procedures". Patient and physician rankings of individual indicators differed for 25 indicators. However, three groups of indicators could be differentiated, in which the relevance ratings of patients and physicians differed only within the groups. Four of the five indicators that were added to the existing set of reported indicators ranked in the first or second group ("kindness of staff", "patient satisfaction", "recommendation", and "distance to place of living").ConclusionMost of the content of Germany's hospital quality reports seems to be useful for patients and physicians and influence their choice of hospitals. However, the target groups revealed that approximately one third of the indicators (mostly hospital structural characteristics), were not useful and hence could have been omitted from the reports. To enhance the usefulness of the reports, indicators on patient experiences should be added.