ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Using feedback on patient health outcomes to improve orthopaedic physical therapist practice: a quality improvement study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMeasuring health outcomes plays an important role in patient-centred healthcare. When aggregated across patients, outcomes can provide data for quality improvement (QI). However, most physical therapists are not familiar with QI methods based on patient outcomes. This mixed-methods study aimed to develop and evaluate a QI programme in outpatient physical therapy care based on routinely collected health outcomes of patients with low-back pain and neck pain.
methodsThe QI programme was conducted by three teams of 5-6 physical therapists from outpatient settings. Plan-do-study-act cycles were used based on team-selected goals. Monthly feedback reports of process and outcomes of care, including pre-post treatment changes in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Neck Disability Index (NDI), guided the QI efforts. Primary outcomes were pre-QI and post-QI changes in knowledge and attitudes towards outcome measures through a survey, and administered and self-reported compliance with using the ODI and NDI. Semistructured interviews and a focus group were conducted to evaluate the perceived value of the programme.
resultsPost-QI, the survey showed improvements in two items related to the role of patients and implementation of outcome measures. Registered pre-QI and post-QI completion rates were high at intake (ODI:91% pre, 88% post; NDI:75% pre, 84% post), while completion rates at discharge improved post-QI (ODI:14% pre, 66% post; NDI: 32% pre, 50% post). Perceived benefits of the QI programme included clinician and institutional accountability to processes and strategies aimed at continuous improvement in patient care. An important facilitator for programme participation was autonomy in project selection and development, while a main barrier was the time required to set up the QI project.
conclusionA QI programme based on the feedback of routinely collected health outcomes of patients with low back pain and neck pain was feasible and well accepted by three pilot teams of physical therapists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.