Development of a standard set of outcome measures for non-specific low back pain in Dutch primary care physiotherapy practices: a Delphi study

Item does not contain fulltextPURPOSE: To develop a clinical standard set of outcome measures that are accepted for relevance and feasibility by stakeholders and useful for (a) interaction between patient and the professional, e.g. shared decision-making in goal-setting, monitoring and feedback based on outcomes, (b) internal quality improvement, and (c) external transparency in patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) in primary care physical therapy. METHODS: We used a consensus-driven modified RAND-UCLA Delphi method in seven steps with panellists (patients, representatives of patient and physiotherapy associations, researchers, policy makers, health insurers): (1) literature search, (2) first online survey, (3) patient interviews, (4) an experts meeting, (5) a consensus meeting, (6) second online survey, and (7) final approval of an advisory board. Steps 1-4 resulted in potential outcome measures. In the consensus meeting after discussion panellists voted for inclusion per measure. In the second online survey the final standard set was rated on relevance and feasibility on a 9-point Likert scale; when the median score was >/= 7, the standard set was accepted and finally approved. RESULTS: Thirteen draft outcome measures were rated and discussed, and finally, six outcome measures were accepted. The standard set includes the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-Specific Functional Scale, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Global Perceived Effect (GPE-DV), and the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT). CONCLUSION: This study presents a standard set of outcome measures for patients with NSLBP in primary care physiotherapy accepted for relevance and feasibility by stakeholders. The standard set is currently used in daily practice and tested on validity and reliability in a pilot study. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material

Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in adults with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA): A systematic review

Contains fulltext : 164118.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)This systematic review summarizes the evidence regarding the quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) validated in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). We performed a systematic literature search of all PROMs validated in patients with OSA, and found 22 measures meeting our inclusion criteria. The quality of the studies was assessed using the consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist. The results showed that most of the measurement properties of the PROMs were not, or not adequately, assessed. For many identified PROMs there was no involvement of patients with OSA during their development or before the PROM was tested in patients with OSA. Positive exceptions and the best current candidates for assessing health status in patients with OSA are the sleep apnea quality of life index (SAQLI), Maugeri obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (MOSAS) questionnaire, Quebec sleep questionnaire (QSQ) and the obstructive sleep apnea patient-oriented severity index (OSAPOSI). Even though there is not enough evidence to fully judge the quality of these PROMs as outcome measure, when interpreted with caution, they have the potential to add value to clinical research and clinical practice in evaluating aspects of health status that are important to patients

Inter-method reliability of the modified Rankin Scale in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage

Background and objectives The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) is one of the most frequently used outcome measures in trials in patients with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). The assessment method of the mRS is often not clearly described in trials, while the method used might influence the mRS score. The aim of this study is to evaluate the inter-method reliability of different assessment methods of the mRS.Methods This is a prospective, randomized, multicenter study with follow-up at 6 weeks and 6 months. Patients aged >= 18 years with aSAH were randomized to either a structured interview or a self-assessment of the mRS. Patients were seen by a physician who assigned an mRS score, followed by either the structured interview or the self-assessment. Inter-method reliability was assessed with the quadratic weighted kappa score and percentage of agreement. Assessment of feasibility of the self-assessment was done by a feasibility questionnaire.Results The quadratic weighted kappa was 0.60 between the assessment of the physician and structured interview and 0.56 between assessment of the physician and self-assessment. Percentage agreement was, respectively, 50.8 and 19.6%. The assessment of the mRS through a structured interview and by self-assessment resulted in systematically higher mRS scores than the mRS scored by the physician. Self-assessment of the mRS was proven feasible.Discussion The mRS scores obtained with different assessment methods differ significantly. The agreement between the scores is low, although the reliability between the assessment methods is good. This should be considered when using the mRS in clinical trials.Scientific Assessment and Innovation in Neurosurgical Treatment Strategie

"Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do"

Item does not contain fulltex

Tackling rising health care costs in Massachusetts

Item does not contain fulltex

Treatment related impairments in arm and shoulder in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review

Contains fulltext : 137123.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women in the developed world. As a result of breast cancer treatment, many patients suffer from serious complaints in their arm and shoulder, leading to limitations in activities of daily living and participation. In this systematic literature review we present an overview of the adverse effects of the integrated breast cancer treatment related to impairment in functions and structures in the upper extremity and upper body and limitations in daily activities. Patients at highest risk were defined. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic literature search using the databases of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane from 2000 to October 2012, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Included were studies with patients with stage I-III breast cancer, treated with surgery and additional treatments (radiotherapy, chemotherapy and hormonal therapy). The following health outcomes were extracted: reduced joint mobility, reduced muscle strength, pain, lymphedema and limitations in daily activities. Outcomes were divided in within the first 12 months and >12 months post-operatively. Patients treated with ALND are at the highest risk of developing impairments of the arm and shoulder. Reduced ROM and muscle strength, pain, lymphedema and decreased degree of activities in daily living were reported most frequently in relation to ALND. Lumpectomy was related to a decline in the level of activities of daily living. Radiotherapy and hormonal therapy were the main risk factors for pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with ALND require special attention to detect and consequently address impairments in the arm and shoulder. Patients with pain should be monitored carefully, because pain limits the degree of daily activities. Future research has to describe a complete overview of the medical treatment and analyze outcome in relation to the treatment. Utilization of uniform validated measurement instruments has to be encouraged

Why peer assessment helps to improve clinical performance in undergraduate physical therapy education: a mixed methods design

Contains fulltext : 137218.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Peer Assessment (PA) in health professions education encourages students to develop a critical attitude towards their own and their peers' performance. We designed a PA task to assess students' clinical skills (including reasoning, communication, physical examination and treatment skills) in a role-play that simulated physical therapy (PT) practice. Students alternately performed in the role of PT, assessor, and patient. Oral face-to-face feedback was provided as well as written feedback and scores.This study aims to explore the impact of PA on the improvement of clinical performance of undergraduate PT students. METHODS: The PA task was analyzed and decomposed into task elements. A qualitative approach was used to explore students' perceptions of the task and the task elements. Semi-structured interviews with second year students were conducted to explore the perceived impact of these task elements on performance improvement. Students were asked to select the elements perceived valuable, to rank them from highest to lowest learning value, and to motivate their choices. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed, using a phenomenographical approach and following template analysis guidelines. A quantitative approach was used to describe the ranking results. RESULTS: Quantitative analyses showed that the perceived impact on learning varied widely. Performing the clinical task in the PT role, was assigned to the first place (1), followed by receiving expert feedback (2), and observing peer performance (3). Receiving peer feedback was not perceived the most powerful task element.Qualitative analyses resulted in three emerging themes: pre-performance, true-performance, and post-performance triggers for improvement. Each theme contained three categories: learning activities, outcomes, and conditions for learning.Intended learning activities were reported, such as transferring prior learning to a new application context and unintended learning activities, such as modelling a peer's performance. Outcomes related to increased self-confidence, insight in performance standards and awareness of improvement areas. Conditions for learning referred to the quality of peer feedback. CONCLUSIONS: PA may be a powerful tool to improve clinical performance, although peer feedback is not perceived the most powerful element. Peer assessors in undergraduate PT education use idiosyncratic strategies to assess their peers' performance

Dutch insurance exchanges: the authors reply

Item does not contain fulltex

Comparing the implementation of team approaches for improving diabetes care in community health centers

Contains fulltext : 139071.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BackgroundPatient panel management and community-based care management may be viable strategies for community health centers to improve the quality of diabetes care for vulnerable patient populations. The objective of our study was to clarify implementation processes and experiences of integrating office-based medical assistant (MA) panel management and community health worker (CHW) community-based management into routine care for diabetic patients.MethodsMixed methods study with interviews and surveys of clinicians and staff participating in a study comparing the effectiveness of MA and CHW health coaching for improving diabetes care. Participants included 24 key informants in five role categories and 249 clinicians and staff survey respondents from 14 participating practices. We conducted thematic analyses of key informant interview transcripts to clarify implementation processes and describe barriers to integrating the new roles into practice. We surveyed clinicians and staff to assess differences in practice culture among intervention and control groups. We triangulated findings to identify concordant and disparate results across data sources.ResultsImplementation processes and experiences varied considerably among the practices implementing CHW and MA team-based approaches, resulting in differences in the organization of health coaching and self-management support activities. Importantly, CHW and MA responsibilities converged over time to focus on health coaching of diabetic patients. MA health coaches experienced difficulty in allocating dedicated time due to other MA responsibilities that often crowded out time for diabetic patient health coaching. Time constraints also limited the personal introduction of patients to health coaches by clinicians. Participants highlighted the importance of a supportive team climate and proactive leadership as important enablers for MAs and CHWs to implement their health coaching responsibilities and also promoted professional growth.ConclusionImplementation of team-based strategies to improve diabetes care for vulnerable populations was diverse, however all practices converged in their foci on health coaching roles of CHWs and MAs. Our study suggests that a flexible approach to implementing health coaching is more important than fidelity to rigid models that do not allow for variable allocation of responsibilities across team members. Clinicians play an instrumental role in supporting health coaches to grow into their new patient care responsibilities