论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
Authors Oostendorp RAB, Elvers JWH, van Trijffel E, Rutten GM, Scholten–Peeters GGM, Heijmans M, Hendriks E, Mikolajewska E, De Kooning M, Laekeman M, Nijs J, Roussel N, Samwel H
Received 16 October 2019
Accepted for publication 28 January 2020
Published 2 March 2020 Volume 2020:14 Pages 425—442
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S234800
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Dr Johnny Chen
Background: Quality indicators (QIs) are measurable
elements of practice performance and may relate to context, process, outcome
and structure. A valid set of QIs have been developed, reflecting the clinical
reasoning used in primary care physiotherapy for patients with
whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). Donabedian’s model postulates
relationships between the constructs of quality of care, acting in a virtuous
circle.
Aim: To
explore the relative strengths of the relationships between context, process,
and outcome indicators in the assessment of primary care physiotherapy in
patients with WAD.
Materials and Methods: Data on WAD patients (N=810) were collected over a period of 16
years in primary care physiotherapy practices by means of patients records.
This routinely collected dataset (RCD-WAD) was classified in context, process,
and outcome variables and analyzed retrospectively. Clinically relevant
variables were selected based on expert consensus. Associations were expressed,
using zero-order, as Spearman rank correlation coefficients (criterion: rs > 0.25 [minimum: fair]; α-value = 0.05).
Results: In
round 1, 62 of 85 (72.9%) variables were selected by an expert panel as
relevant for clinical reasoning; in round 2, 34 of 62 (54.8%) (context
variables 9 of 18 [50.0%]; process variables 18 of 34 [52.9]; outcome variables
8 of 10 [90.0%]) as highly relevant. Associations between the selected context
and process variables ranged from 0.27 to 0.53 (p≤ 0.00), between selected
context and outcome variables from 0.26 to 0.55 (p≤ 0.00), and between selected
process and outcome variables from 0.29 to 0.59 (p≤ 0.00). Moderate
associations (rs > 0.50;
p≤ 0.00) were found between “pain coping” and “fear avoidance” as process
variables, and “pain intensity” and “functioning” as outcome variables.
Conclusion: The
identified associations between selected context, process, and outcome
variables were fair to moderate. Ongoing work may clarify some of these
associations and provide guidance to physiotherapists on how best to improve
the quality of clinical reasoning in terms of relationships between context,
process, and outcome in the management of patients with WAD.
Keywords: physiotherapy,
whiplash injuries, outcome and process assessment, healthcare quality
indicators, collected data