Treatment of low back pain: monitoring clinical practice through audit

Measuring guideline adherence in physiotherapy: A scoping review of methodological approaches

RATIONALE

Clinical practice guidelines summarise the existing evidence on specific health conditions and aim to optimise quality of care by providing evidence-based recommendations. Studies have reported a gap between research findings and clinical practice in physiotherapy. Guideline adherence is often used as a measure of agreement between therapeutic care and guideline recommendations. However, there is currently no standardised methodological approach for measuring guideline adherence.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review was to summarise the methods and results of studies that assessed guideline adherence in physiotherapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro and CENTRAL databases were searched for relevant literature up to December 2022. Published reports of observational studies and controlled clinical trials that provided information on the assessment of guideline adherence in physiotherapists were included. The selection process was performed independently by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the identified reports was not assessed. Results were summarised narratively.

RESULTS

From a total of 2560 potentially relevant records, 53 reports were included in the analysis. Physiotherapists' adherence to guidelines was primarily assessed in the context of musculoskeletal conditions, such as low back pain (n = 25, 47.2%) and osteoarthritis (n = 8, 15.1%). A wide range of measurement approaches were used with the majority of reports using web-based surveys (n = 21, 39.6%), followed by chart reviews (n = 17, 32.1%). Most reports (n = 21, 39.6%) provided information on the level of adherence in terms of frequency dichotomising (self-reported) clinical practice as adherent or non-adherent. Adherence rates varied widely between included reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the large number of included reports indicates a high level of interest in the topic of guideline adherence, there is considerable heterogeneity between studies regarding the methodological approaches used to assess guideline adherence in physiotherapists. This reduces the comparability of the study results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

INPLASY (registration no. 202250081). Registered on 12th May 2022.

The Use of Quality Improvement in the Physical Therapy Literature: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Quality improvement (QI) is a useful methodology for improving healthcare, often through iterative changes. There is no prior review on the application of QI in physical therapy (PT).

PURPOSE AND RELEVANCE

To characterize and evaluate the quality of the QI literature in PT.

METHODS

We searched four electronic databases from inception through September 1, 2022. Included publications focused on QI and included the practice of PT. Quality was assessed using the 16-point QI Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS) appraisal tool.

RESULTS

Seventy studies were included in the review, 60 of which were published since 2014 with most ( n = 47) from the United States. Acute care ( n = 41) was the most prevalent practice setting. Twenty-two studies (31%) did not use QI models or approaches and only nine studies referenced Revised Standards for QI Reporting Excellence guidelines. The median QI-MQCS score was 12 (range 7-15).

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Quality improvement publications in the PT literature are increasing, yet there is a paucity of QI studies pertaining to most practice settings and a lack of rigor in project design and reporting. Many studies were of low-to-moderate quality and did not meet minimum reporting standards. We recommend use of models, frameworks, and reporting guidelines to improve methodologic rigor and reporting.

Patient's satisfaction in physiotherapy outpatient departments of Amhara regional comprehensive specialized hospitals, Ethiopia

Background

Satisfaction is basically the state of being gratified and act of fulfilling one's need or desires. Nowadays, evidence-based practice concept is prevailing and there has been a growing interest in the measurement of patient satisfaction in healthcare research. Patient satisfaction surveys provide several benefits for healthcare professionals. Assessing patient’s satisfaction with physiotherapy service could generate knowledge that can utilized for improving or maintaining quality service. Although a wide coverage and high emphasis givens to patient satisfaction studies in developed counties, there are few research’s done in Africa. This study aimed to assess satisfaction in physiotherapy service and identify predictors that affect satisfaction among patient treated in physiotherapy outpatient department.

Objectives

To assess satisfaction in physiotherapy service and identify associated factors among patients in physiotherapy outpatient department in Amhara regional state comprehensive specialized hospitals.

Method

Institution based cross-sectional study was conducted among physiotherapy outpatients from April to June 2021, at three selected Comprehensive specialized hospitals. Data were collected by interviewing participants using semi-structured questionnaire. Patient satisfaction was determined by using Medrisk tool. Data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics and bivariate and multivariable logistic regression method were used to identify predictor factors.

Result

A total of 409 participants with a response rate of 95% were included in this study. The overall satisfaction among physiotherapy outpatient attendee was 50.1% with 95% CI (46.2–55.7). Pain level (AOR = 5.59 95%CI (2.58–12.1), longitudinal continuity of care (AOR = 3.02 95%CI (1.46–6.62) and self-rated health improvement (AOR = 3.76, 95% CI (1.78–7.94) were significantly associated factors.

Conclusion

The overall satisfaction in this study were found to be low in Amhara regional state comprehensive specialized hospitals. pain level, self-rated health improvement and longitudinal continuity of care were significantly associated factors.

Do physical therapists follow evidence-based guidelines when managing musculoskeletal conditions? Systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Physicians often refer patients with musculoskeletal conditions to physical therapy. However, it is unclear to what extent physical therapists' treatment choices align with the evidence. The aim of this systematic review was to determine what percentage of physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions agree with management recommendations in evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

We performed searches in Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Scopus and Web of Science combining terms synonymous with 'practice patterns' and 'physical therapy' from the earliest record to April 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Studies that quantified physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions through surveys of physical therapists, audits of clinical notes and other methods (eg, audits of billing codes, clinical observation) were eligible for inclusion.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Using medians and IQRs, we summarised the percentage of physical therapists who chose treatments that were recommended, not recommended and had no recommendation, and summarised the percentage of physical therapy treatments provided for various musculoskeletal conditions within the categories of recommended, not recommended and no recommendation. Results were stratified by condition and how treatment choices were assessed (surveys of physical therapists vs audits of clinical notes).

RESULTS

We included 94 studies. For musculoskeletal conditions, the median percentage of physical therapists who chose recommended treatments was 54% (n=23 studies; surveys completed by physical therapists) and the median percentage of patients that received recommended physical therapy-delivered treatments was 63% (n=8 studies; audits of clinical notes). For treatments not recommended, these percentages were 43% (n=37; surveys) and 27% (n=20; audits). For treatments with no recommendation, these percentages were 81% (n=37; surveys) and 45% (n=31; audits).

CONCLUSIONS

Many physical therapists seem not to follow evidence-based guidelines when managing musculoskeletal conditions. There is considerable scope to increase use of recommended treatments and reduce use of treatments that are not recommended.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018094979.

Learning lumbar spine mobilization: the effects of frequency and self-control of feedback

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study, longitudinal.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of frequency and self-control of feedback on physiotherapy students learning lumbar spinal mobilization.

BACKGROUND

Posterior-to-anterior mobilization is included in most physiotherapy curricula. However, force application varies between therapists and the optimal feedback for learning is unknown.

METHODS

Sixty-two physiotherapy students were randomized to 3 feedback groups: constant (100% of practice trials), intermittent (33%), and self-controlled (varied according to student choice) feedback. Students performed 12 practice trials of grade II posterior-to-anterior mobilization to the third lumbar vertebra while receiving real-time feedback. The differences between students' force parameters (mean peak force [N], force amplitude [N], and oscillation frequency [Hz]) and those of a physiotherapist expert were compared between groups posttest and at a follow-up of 5 to 7 days using analysis of covariance. Students completed a survey regarding their perceptions of feedback.

RESULTS

Students in the self-controlled group applied mean peak force (mean difference between student and expert, 6.7 N; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.4, 9.0) and force amplitude (6.3 N; 95% CI: 4.2, 8.4) that more closely matched the expert's than those applied by the constant group (13.7 N; 95% CI: 8.7, 18.6; P = .021, and 13.1 N; 95% CI: 8.9, 17.4; P = .028) at posttest, with similar results at follow-up for force amplitude only (self-controlled, 9.5 N; 95% CI: 5.8, 18.1; constant, 21.0 N; 95% CI: 13.3, 28.7; P = .018). There were no other significant differences. All students reported a better understanding of manual force application, but feedback preferences varied.

CONCLUSION

Self-controlled feedback appears to be more beneficial than constant feedback for students learning to apply forces during lumbar mobilization.