Quality indicators for physiotherapy care in hip and knee osteoarthritis: development and clinimetric properties

Quality indicators for knee and hip osteoarthritis care: a systematic review

To provide an overview of quality indicators (QIs) for knee and hip osteoarthritis (KHOA) care and to highlight differences in healthcare settings. A database search was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL and Google Scholar, OpenGrey and Prospective Trial Register, up to March 2020. Studies developing or adapting existing QI(s) for patients with osteoarthritis were eligible for inclusion. Included studies were categorised into healthcare settings. QIs from included studies were categorised into structure, process and outcome of care. Within these categories, QIs were grouped into themes (eg, physical therapy). A narrative synthesis was used to describe differences and similarities between healthcare settings. We included 20 studies with a total of 196 QIs mostly related to the process of care in different healthcare settings. Few studies included patients’ perspectives. Rigorous methods for evidence synthesis to develop QIs were rarely used. Narrative analysis showed differences in QIs between healthcare settings with regard to exercise therapy, weight counselling, referral to laboratory tests and ‘do not do’ QIs. Differences within the same healthcare setting were identified on radiographic assessment. The heterogeneity in QIs emphasise the necessity to carefully select QIs for KHOA depending on the healthcare setting. This review provides an overview of QIs outlined to their healthcare settings to support healthcare providers and policy makers in selecting the contextually appropriate QIs to validly monitor the quality of KHOA care. We strongly recommend to review QIs against the most recent guidelines before implementing them into practice.

Physical therapy in patients with systemic sclerosis: physical therapists' perspectives on current delivery and educational needs

Objective: To assess the perspectives of physical therapists treating patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) on their current practice and educational needs.Method: In July 2019, 405 SSc patients attending a multidisciplinary SSc programme received a survey on physical therapy. Patients who indicated having received physical therapy in the past 2 years were asked to invite their treating physical therapist to complete a questionnaire including sociodemographic characteristics, referral process, content of treatment, perceived knowledge and skills, and educational needs (mostly yes/no answers).Results: Forty-eight of 80 possibly eligible physical therapists treating SSc patients returned the questionnaire [median age 44 years (interquartile range 35-58); 52% female; median number of SSc patients currently treated: 1 (range 1-4)]. Eighty-one per cent (n = 39) of physical therapists had received a referral, with 69% (n = 27/39) judging its content as insufficient. The most often provided types of exercises were range of motion (96%), muscle-strengthening (85%), and aerobic (71%) exercises, followed by hand (42%) and mouth (10%) exercises. Concerning manual treatment, 65% performed either massage or passive mobilization. Regarding competences, 65% indicated feeling capable of treating SSc patients. Nevertheless, 85% expressed the need for an information website on physical therapy in SSc, and 77% for postgraduate education on SSc.Conclusion: Primary care physical therapists treating patients with SSc used a wide range of treatment modalities. Although most stated that they treated very few patients, the majority felt capable of treating SSc patients. Nevertheless, the large majority expressed a need for additional information and educational activities concerning SSc.

Knee Osteoarthritis: An Investigation into the Clinical Practice of Physiotherapists in Canada

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to establish the clinical practice of physiotherapists who treat people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) in Canada and examine their knowledge, awareness, use of, and attitudes toward clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Method: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of physiotherapists who are licensed to practise in Canada and who treat people with knee OA. Results: A total of 388 physiotherapists completed our survey. Approximately two-thirds of them (271) were aware of CPGs. Out of all CPG recommendations, most respondents provided leg strengthening exercises (380) and education (364). More than 80% believed that CPGs improved patient care and enhanced decision making and were confident in their ability to interpret CPGs. More physiotherapists (204) identified barriers to the use of CPGs than facilitators of their use (117). Physiotherapists who were employed in private practice were substantially more likely to use interventions such as acupuncture (odds ratio [OR] 5.98; 95% CI: 2.92, 12.23; p < 0.01) and joint mobilization and manipulation (OR 6.58; 95% CI: 3.45, 12.55; p < 0.01) than were physiotherapists employed in hospital settings. Conclusions: Two-thirds of respondents were aware of CPGs. Physiotherapists provided education and leg strengthening exercises more often than aerobic exercise and weight management advice. Physiotherapists employed in private practice were more likely to use adjunct interventions.

Measurement properties for the revised patient-reported OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire

OBJECTIVES

To assess validity, reliability, responsiveness and interpretability of the revised OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator (OA-QI) questionnaire version 2 (v2) assessing patient-reported quality of osteoarthritis care.

METHODS

The OA-QI v2 (16 items, score range 0-100 (100 = best score)) was included in a longitudinal cohort study. Attendees of a 4.5 h osteoarthritis patient education programme at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Norway, completed the OA-QI at four time points: 2 weeks before, immediately before, immediately after, and 3 months after the programme. Test-retest reliability and measurement error over a 2-week time period were assessed in those that had not seen health professionals in the interim. Construct validity and responsiveness were assessed with predefined hypotheses. Floor and ceiling effects, smallest detectable change (SDC_95%) and minimal important change (MIC) were assessed to evaluate interpretability.

RESULTS

The intraclass correlation coefficient for all 16 items was 0.89. For single items the test-retest kappa estimates ranged 0.38-0.85 and percent agreement 69-92%. Construct validity was acceptable with all six predefined hypotheses confirmed. Responsiveness was acceptable with 33 of 48 and three of four predefined hypotheses confirmed for single items and all items, respectively. There were no floor or ceiling effects. The SDC_95% was 29.1 and 3.0 at the individual and group levels, respectively. MIC was 20.4.

CONCLUSIONS

The OA-QI v2 had higher reliability estimates compared to v1, showed acceptable validity, and is the recommended version for future use. The results of responsiveness testing further support the use of the OA-QI v2 as an outcome measure in studies aiming to improve osteoarthritis care.

Are physiotherapists adhering to quality indicators for the management of knee osteoarthritis? An observational study

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common musculoskeletal condition that often leads to pain, stiffness and disability. Physiotherapy plays an important role in the management of knee OA, however we hypothesize discordance between physiotherapists' practice and existing guideline recommendations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to measure physiotherapists' guideline adherence for knee OA. Additionally, determinants for guideline adherence at the professional and organizational level were explored, to find clues for improvement.

METHOD

A survey was performed among Belgian physiotherapists. Guideline adherence was measured with a set of 9 quality indicators, developed for the Belgian primary healthcare system, applicable for physiotherapists and extracted from evidence-based guidelines. Treatment modalities that do not contribute to high quality care were also examined.

RESULTS

284 Physiotherapists responded to the survey. Compliance to the quality indicators varied between 27% and 98%. Quality indicator compliance above 80% was found for: education on the importance of exercise, delivering functional and strength exercise therapy, patient tailored exercise program, instruction of patients in appropriate exercises and referral for sports activities after therapy. Quality indicator compliance less than 50% was found for: education on the importance of weight loss, providing self-management strategies, spreading treatment session over longer periods and regular evaluations of the exercise therapy. For treatment modalities that do not contribute to high quality care, massage (49%) and cold application (24%) were most frequently applied.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed large variations in adherence to quality indicators in OA management by physiotherapists. Improvement strategies should focus on quality indicators related to long-term treatment options.

Healthcare Quality Indicators for Physiotherapy Management in Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Delphi Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to develop healthcare quality indicators (HCQIs) for the physiotherapy (PT) management of patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (HKOA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Two multidisciplinary expert panels, including patients, were instituted. A draft HCQI set was derived from recommendations included in two existing Dutch PT guidelines for HKOA and RA. The panels suggested additional topics, after which a Delphi procedure was performed. All propositions were scored for their potential to represent good-quality PT care (score range 0-9). Based on predefined rules, the Delphi panel HCQIs were discussed and selected. Lastly, every indicator was rephrased, resulting in its output consisting of a numerator and denominator, to facilitate comparisons within and among practices.

RESULTS

After two Delphi rounds, two final sets of 17 HCQI - one for HKOA and one for RA - were composed, both containing 16 process indicators (regarding initial assessment, treatment and evaluation) and one outcome indicator.

CONCLUSIONS

Two sets of HCQIs for PT management in HKOA and RA were developed for measuring the quality of PT care in daily clinical practice. Each indicator was formulated in a measurable way. Future research should focus on the feasibility of both indicator sets for daily clinical practice.

Emerging Role of Quality Indicators in Physical Therapist Practice and Health Service Delivery

Quality-based care is a hallmark of physical therapy. Treatment effectiveness must be evident to patients, managers, employers, and funders. Quality indicators (QIs) are tools that specify the minimum acceptable standard of practice. They are used to measure health care processes, organizational structures, and outcomes that relate to aspects of high-quality care of patients. Physical therapists can use QIs to guide clinical decision making, implement guideline recommendations, and evaluate and report treatment effectiveness to key stakeholders, including third-party payers and patients. Rehabilitation managers and senior decision makers can use QIs to assess care gaps and achievement of benchmarks as well as to guide quality improvement initiatives and strategic planning. This article introduces the value and use of QIs to guide clinical practice and health service delivery specific to physical therapy. A framework to develop, select, report, and implement QIs is outlined, with total joint arthroplasty rehabilitation as an example. Current initiatives of Canadian and American physical therapy associations to develop tools to help clinicians report and access point-of-care data on patient progress, treatment effectiveness, and practice strengths for the purpose of demonstrating the value of physical therapy to patients, decision makers, and payers are discussed. Suggestions on how physical therapists can participate in QI initiatives and integrate a quality-of-care approach in clinical practice are made.

Self-reported quality care for knee osteoarthritis: comparisons across Denmark, Norway, Portugal and the UK

Objectives

To assess and compare patient perceived quality of osteoarthritis (OA) management in primary healthcare in Denmark, Norway, Portugal and the UK.

Methods

Participants consulting with clinical signs and symptoms of knee OA were identified in 30 general practices and invited to complete a cross-sectional survey including quality indicators (QI) for OA care. A QI was considered as eligible if the participant had checked ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and as achieved if the participant had checked ‘Yes’ to the indicator. The median percentage (with IQR and range) of eligible QIs achieved by country was determined and compared in negative binominal regression analysis. Achievement of individual QIs by country was determined and compared using logistic regression analyses.

Results

A total of 354 participants self-reported QI achievement. The median percentage of eligible QIs achieved (checked ‘Yes’) was 48% (IQR 28%, 64%; range 0–100%) for the total sample with relatively similar medians across three of four countries. Achievement rates on individual QIs showed a large variation ranging from 11% (referral to services for losing weight) to 67% (information about the importance of exercise) with significant differences in achievement rates between the countries.

Conclusions

The results indicated a potential for improvement in OA care in all four countries, but for somewhat different aspects of OA care. By exploring these differences and comparing healthcare services, ideas may be generated on how the quality might be improved across nations. Larger studies are needed to confirm and further explore the findings.