A quality indicator set for rehabilitation services for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases demonstrates adequate responsiveness in a pre-post evaluation

Anne-Lene Sand-Svartrud, Gunnhild Berdal, Maryam Azimi, Ingvild Bø, Turid Nygaard Dager, Siv Grødal Eppeland, Guro Ohldieck Fredheim, Anne Sirnes Hagland, Åse Klokkeide, Anita Dyb Linge, Kjetil Tennebø, Helene Lindtvedt Valaas, Ann Margret Aasvold, Hanne Dagfinrud, Ingvild Kjeken, Anne-Lene Sand-Svartrud, Gunnhild Berdal, Maryam Azimi, Ingvild Bø, Turid Nygaard Dager, Siv Grødal Eppeland, Guro Ohldieck Fredheim, Anne Sirnes Hagland, Åse Klokkeide, Anita Dyb Linge, Kjetil Tennebø, Helene Lindtvedt Valaas, Ann Margret Aasvold, Hanne Dagfinrud, Ingvild Kjeken

Abstract

Background: Quality of care is gaining increasing attention in research, clinical practice, and health care planning. Methods for quality assessment and monitoring, such as quality indicators (QIs), are needed to ensure health services in line with norms and recommendations. The aim of this study was to assess the responsiveness of a newly developed QI set for rehabiliation for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Methods: We used two yes/no questionnaires to measure quality from both the provider and patient perspectives, scored in a range of 0-100% (best score, 100%). We collected QI data from a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial (the BRIDGE trial) that compared traditional rehabilitation with a new BRIDGE program designed to improve quality and continuity in rehabilitation. Assessment of the responsiveness was performed as a pre-post evaluation: Providers at rehabilitation centers in Norway completed the center-reported QIs (n = 19 structure indicators) before (T1) and 6-8 weeks after (T2) adding the BRIDGE intervention. The patient-reported QIs comprised 14 process and outcomes indicators, measuring quality in health services from the patient perspective. Pre-intervention patient-reported data were collected from patients participating in the traditional program (T1), and post-intervention data were collected from patients participating in the BRIDGE program (T2). The patient groups were comparable. We used a construct approach, with a priori hypotheses regarding the expected direction and magnitude of PR changes between T1 and T2. For acceptable responsivess, at least 75% of the hypotheses needed to be confirmed.

Results: All eight participating centers and 82% of the patients (293/357) completed the QI questionnaires. Responsiveness was acceptable, with 44 of 53 hypotheses (83%) confirmed for single indicators and 3 of 4 hypotheses (75%) confirmed for the sum scores.

Conclusion: We found this QI set for rehabilitation to be responsive when applied in rehabilitation services for adults with various RMD conditions. We recommend this QI set as a timely method for establishing quality-of-rehabilitation benchmarks, promoting important progress toward high-quality rehabilitation, and tracking trends over time.

Trial registration: The study is part of the larger BRIDGE trial, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03102814).

Keywords: Health care; Musculoskeletal disease; Quality indicator; Rehabilitation; Responsiveness.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Expected influence of the BRIDGE program on “A quality indicator set of rehabilitation for RMDs”
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Longitudinal changes in total pass rates in the time interval from T1 to T2
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Longitudinal changes in single indicator pass rates in the time interval from T1 to T2

References

    1. Krishnan E, Lingala B, Bruce B, Fries JF. Disability in rheumatoid arthritis in the era of biological treatments. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71(2):213–218. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200354.
    1. Kolasinski SL, Neogi T, Hochberg MC, Oatis C, Guyatt G, Block J, et al. 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Rheum. 2020;72(2):220–233. doi: 10.1002/art.41142.
    1. Macfarlane GJ, Kronisch C, Dean LE, Atzeni F, Häuser W, Fluß E, et al. EULAR revised recommendations for the management of fibromyalgia. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(2):318–328. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209724.
    1. Frontera WR, Silver JK, Rizzo TD, Custodio CM, Ibanez K, Stein J, et al. Essentials of physical medicine and rehabilitation : musculoskeletal disorders, pain, and rehabilitation. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2019.
    1. Meesters J, Hagel S, Klokkerud M, Stovgaard I, Bremander A, Grotle M, et al. Goal-setting in multidisciplinary team care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an international multi-center evaluation of the contents using the international classification of functioning, disability and health as a reference. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45(9):888–899. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1191.
    1. Garrido-Cumbrera M, Hillmann O, Mahapatra R, Trigos D, Zajc P, Weiss L, et al. Improving the Management of Psoriatic Arthritis and Axial Spondyloarthritis: roundtable discussions with healthcare professionals and patients. Rheumatol Ther. 2017;4(2):219–231. doi: 10.1007/s40744-017-0066-2.
    1. Berdal G, Sand-Svartrud A-L, Bø I, Dager TN, Dingsør A, Eppeland SG, et al. Aiming for a healthier life: a qualitative content analysis of rehabilitation goals in patients with rheumatic diseases. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(7):765–778. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1275043.
    1. Malm K, Bremander A, Arvidsson B, Andersson MLE, Bergman S, Larsson I. Predictors of severe self-reported disability in RA in a long-term follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(8):686–691. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.939773.
    1. Malm K, Bergman S, Andersson M, Bremander A. The influence of lifestyle habits on quality of life in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis-a constant balancing between ideality and reality. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2016;11(1):30534–30539. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v11.30534.
    1. Kamper SJ, Apeldoorn AT, Chiarotto A, Smeets RJEM, Ostelo RWJG, Guzman J, et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015;350:h444. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h444.
    1. World Health Organization . World report on disability. 2011.
    1. Wade D. Rehabilitation – a new approach. Overview and part one: the problems. Clin Rehabil. 2015;29(11):1041–1050. doi: 10.1177/0269215515601174.
    1. The Norwegian Directorate of Health . Norwegian board of health Supervison. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet; 2015.
    1. The Office of the Auditor General Document 3:11 (2011-2012) The Office of the Auditor General’s investigation into rehabilitation in the health service. Norway. 2012.
    1. Mahmood SB, Lesuis NMD, van Tuyl LHDP, van Riel PMDP, Landewé RMDP. Quality in rheumatoid arthritis care. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2015;29(4–5):664–679. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2015.09.009.
    1. Lawrence M, Olesen F. Indicators of quality in health care. Eur J Gen Pract. 1997;3(3):103–108. doi: 10.3109/13814789709160336.
    1. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743–1748. doi: 10.1001/jama.1988.03410120089033.
    1. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q. 2005;83(4):691–729. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x.
    1. Eldar R. Methodology matters - XIII. Quality of care in rehabilitation medicine. Int J Qual Health Care. 1999;11(1):73–79. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/11.1.73.
    1. Mainz J. Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15(6):523–530. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzg081.
    1. Johansen I, Klokkerud M, Anke A, Børke J-B, Glott T, Hauglie U, et al. A quality indicator set for use in rehabilitation team care of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases; development and pilot testing. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):265–276. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4091-4.
    1. National Library of Medicine: The BRIDGE Rehabilitation Trial (BRIDGE) 2017 [updated 02032020]. Available from: . Acced 8 May 2019.
    1. Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley J. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiother Can. 1995;47(4):258–263. doi: 10.3138/ptc.47.4.258.
    1. Moseng T, Tveter A, Holm I, Dagfinrud H. Pasient-Spesifikk Funksjons Skala: et nyttig verktøy for fysioterapeuter i primærhelsetjenesten. Fysioterapeuten. 2013;80:2.
    1. Klokkerud M, Hagen KB, Kjeken I, Bremander A, Horslev-Petersen K, Vlieland TV, et al. Development of a framework identifying domains and elements of importance for arthritis rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(5):406–413. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0961.
    1. Grotle M, Klokkerud M, Kjeken I, Bremander A, Hagel S, Strömbeck B, et al. What's in the black box of arthritis rehabilitation? A comparison of rehabilitation practice for patients with inflammatory arthritis in northern Europe. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45(5):458–466. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1125.
    1. Csuka M, McCarty DJ. Simple method for measurement of lower extremity muscle strength. Am J Med. 1985;78(1):77–81. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(85)90465-6.
    1. Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999;70(2):113–119. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1999.10608028.
    1. Klokkerud M, Dagfinrud H, Uhlig T, Dager TN, Furunes KA, Klokkeide Å, et al. Developing and testing a consensus-based core set of outcome measures for rehabilitation in musculoskeletal diseases. Scand J Rheumatol. 2018;47(3):225–234. doi: 10.1080/03009742.2017.1347959.
    1. EuroQol Office: EQ-5D-5L 2017 [updated 18042017]. Available from: . Accessed 8 june 2020.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–745. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.
    1. COSMIN . COSMIN study design checklist for patient-reported outcome measurement instruments 2019. 2019.
    1. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine : a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
    1. Ramalho A, Castro P, Gonçalves-Pinho M, Teixeira J, Santos JV, Viana J, et al. Primary health care quality indicators: an umbrella review. PLoS One. 2019;14:8.
    1. Mant J. Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality in health care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001;13(6):475–480. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/13.6.475.
    1. Bilimoria KY. Facilitating quality improvement: pushing the pendulum Back toward process measures. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1333–1334. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.12470.
    1. Stelfox HT, Straus SE. Measuring quality of care: considering measurement frameworks and needs assessment to guide quality indicator development. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(12):1320–1327. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.018.
    1. Berdal G, Bø I, Dager TN, Dingsør A, Eppeland SG, Hagfors J, et al. Structured goal planning and supportive telephone follow-up in rheumatology care: results from a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial. Arthritis Care Res. 2018;70(11):1576–1586. doi: 10.1002/acr.23520.
    1. Gratacós J, Luelmo J, Rodríguez J, Notario J, Marco TN, de la Cueva P, et al. Standards of care and quality indicators for multidisciplinary care models for psoriatic arthritis in Spain. Rheumatol Int. 2018;38(6):1115–1124. doi: 10.1007/s00296-018-3986-4.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere