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

Abstract

Rob AB Oostendorp,1–4 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,3,8,16 Marjan Laekeman,17 Jo Nijs,3,8,16 Nathalie Roussel,18 Han Samwel191Scientific 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, Free University Brussels, 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, Free University Brussels, 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, University College Venlo, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 11Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioral and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 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 University, Torun, Poland; 15Neurocognitive Laboratory, Centre for Modern Interdisciplinary Technologies, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun, Poland; 16Department of Physical Medicine and Physiotherapy, University Hospital Brussels, Brussels, Belgium; 17Department of Nursing Sciences, Faculty of Health, University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany; 18Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy (MOVANT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium; 19Department of Medical Psychology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the NetherlandsPurpose: To 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 methods: The 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”.Results: Using 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).Conclusion: A 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”. Keywords: quality of physiotherapy care, Whiplash-associated disorders, clinical guidelines, quality indicators, clinical reasoning process, routinely collected data

Keywords

• quality of physiotherapy care
• whiplash-associated disorders
• clinical guidelines
• quality indicators
• clinical reasoning process
• routinely collected data.