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. METHODS: 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)]. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
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. METHODS: 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)]. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Rob A B Oostendorp; Hans Elvers; Emilia Mikolajewska; Nathalie Roussel; Emiel van Trijffel; Han Samwel; Jo Nijs; William Duquet Journal: J Man Manip Ther Date: 2016-09
Authors: Rob A B Oostendorp; Hans Elvers; Emilia Mikołajewska; Marjan Laekeman; Emiel van Trijffel; Han Samwel; William Duquet Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2015-04-05
Authors: Emiel van Trijffel; Robert Lindeboom; Patrick Mm Bossuyt; Maarten A Schmitt; Cees Lucas; Bart W Koes; Rob Ab Oostendorp Journal: Chiropr Man Therap Date: 2014-06-20
Authors: Rob Ab Oostendorp; Hans Elvers; Emiel van Trijffel; Geert M Rutten; Gwendolyne Gm Scholten-Peeters; Marcel Heijmans; Erik Hendriks; Emilia Mikolajewska; Margot De Kooning; Marjan Laekeman; Jo Nijs; Nathalie Roussel; Han Samwel Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Arie C Verburg; Simone A van Dulmen; Henri Kiers; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden; Philip J van der Wees Journal: ERJ Open Res Date: 2022-08-15
Authors: Rob A B Oostendorp; Hans Elvers; Emiel van Trijffel; Geert M Rutten; Gwendolyne G M Scholten-Peeters; Margot De Kooning; Marjan Laekeman; Jo Nijs; Nathalie Roussel; Han Samwel Journal: Front Pain Res (Lausanne) Date: 2022-08-30
Authors: Rob A B Oostendorp; J W Hans Elvers; Emiel van Trijffel; Geert M Rutten; Gwendolyne G M Scholten-Peeters; Marcel Heijmans; Erik Hendriks; Emilia Mikolajewska; Margot De Kooning; Marjan Laekeman; Jo Nijs; Nathalie Roussel; Han Samwel Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 2.711