Toepassen van Kwaliteitsindicatoren

Pijnenborg, L.; Bouma, Margriet; Braspenning, Jozé; Witmer, H.

doi:10.1007/978-90-313-9468-5_3

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar physiotherapy studies were found 52 – 57 but these studies focused on different patient groups and different scores for quality improvements. 58 – 60 International consensus on performance targets and scoring procedures would improve the comparability of studies on the quality of physiotherapy care.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Has the quality of physiotherapy care in patients with Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) improved over time? A retrospective study using routinely collected data and quality indicators

Oostendorp¹,

Elvers²,

Trijffel³

et al. 2018

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo develop valid quality indicators (QIs) for physiotherapy care based on best available evidence, and to use these QIs to explore trends in the quality of physiotherapy care of patients with Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) using guideline-based routinely collected data (RCD) gathered between 1996 and 2011.Materials and methodsThe study consisted of two phases: 1) development of QIs and 2) analysis of patient records. A set of QIs was developed based on recommendations in the scientific literature and the Dutch Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) “Physiotherapy Management and WAD”. QIs were expressed as percentages, allowing target performance levels to be defined (≥80% or ≤30% depending on whether desired performance required a high or low score on a QI). We then analyzed WAD patient data (N = 810) collected over a period of 16 years in two physiotherapy practices, separating patients into two groups defined as before (Group A 1996–2002; n = 353) and after (Group B 2003–2011; n = 457) implementation and transition to the Dutch CPG “Physiotherapy Management and WAD”.ResultsUsing an iterative process and input from both experts and users, 28 QIs were developed and subsequently classified per step of the clinical reasoning process for physiotherapy care. Based on 16 years of RCD, we found that the clinical reasoning process differed significantly (P ≤ 0.05) between the groups, in favor of Group B. Twelve of the 25 indicators (48.0%) in Group A and 19 of 26 indicators (73.1%) in Group B met predetermined performance targets. The number of target indicators also differed significantly between groups, favoring Group B (P ≤ 0.05).ConclusionA preliminary set of novel QIs was developed. Using RCD and these QIs, we conclude that physiotherapy care in our study setting improved over the period 1996–2011. Furthermore, the QIs met the performance targets set for the clinical reasoning process after the transition to the Dutch CPG “Physiotherapy Management and WAD”.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%