| Popis: |
Rob AB Oostendorp, 1–4 JW Hans Elvers, 5, 6 Emiel van Trijffel, 7, 8 Geert M Rutten, 9, 10 Gwendolyne GM Scholten–Peeters, 11 Marcel Heijmans, 4 Erik Hendriks, 12, 13 Emilia Mikolajewska, 14, 15 Margot De Kooning, 3, 16 Marjan Laekeman, 17 Jo Nijs, 3, 16 Nathalie Roussel, 18 Han Samwel 19 1Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 2Department of Manual Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; 3Pain in Motion International Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; 4Practice Physiotherapy and Manual Therapy, Heeswijk-Dinther, the Netherlands; 5Department of Public Health and Research, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 6Methodological Health-Skilled Institute, Beuningen, the Netherlands; 7SOMT University of Physiotherapy, Amersfoort, the Netherlands; 8Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; 9Institute of Health Studies, Faculty of Health and Social Studies, HAN University of Applied Science, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 10Faculty of Science and Engineering, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 11Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioral and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Free University Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 12Department of Epidemiology, Center of Evidence Based Physiotherapy, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 13Practice Physiotherapy ‘Klepperheide’, Druten, the Netherlands; 14Department of Physiotherapy, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus Univerisity, ToruÅ, Poland; 15Neurocognitive Laboratory, Centre for Modern Interdisciplinary Technologies, Nicolaus Copernicus University, ToruÅ, Poland; 16Department of Physical Medicine and Physiotherapy, University Hospital Brussels, Brussels, Belgium; 17Department of Nursing Sciences, Ph.D.-Kolleg, Faculty of Health, University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany; 18Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences (MOVANT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; 19Revalis Pain Rehabilitation Centre, ‘s Hertogenbosch, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Rob AB OostendorpScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, p/a Oude Kleefsebaan 325, Berg en Dal 6572 AT, the NetherlandsTel +31 2464234219Email oostendorp.rob@gmail.comBackground: 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 |
